|
I can't envision a scenario where a foreign invading soldier sets foot on American soil and their city back home is not simultaneously transformed into radioactive ash.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 21:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 13:52 |
|
|
That Works posted:I can't envision a scenario where a foreign invading soldier sets foot on American soil and their city back home is not simultaneously transformed into radioactive ash. They've already captured the White House though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 22:00
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:They've already captured the White House though. 
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 22:00
|
|
|
It's been ages in the thread since there's been a proper "Who would win US or Russia?" discussion, this is all really good stuff.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 22:11
|
|
|
Decoy Badger posted:China attempted to cut off Japan's supply of rare earths due to some international incident in the 00s. This caused prices to increase about 10x (depending on the exact REE). Subsequently, manufacturers started using 90% less REEs - remember how giant old HDD magnets were compared to modern ones? Turns out that most REEs can be substituted with other things with minor impact on performance. When demand dropped, prices collapsed and this took the only two non-Chinese mines out of the market (one in South Africa, another in California). But manufacturers continued to use less REEs, so demand stayed low. Most REE producers even within China - the largest mine with literally 10 times higher grade than the former American producer - are currently losing money. Another funny part in this is that the price fuckery - probably engineered by CCP members to make bank - was seriously undermined by all the rare earth smuggling that resulted when prices went bananas - likely by those very same CCP memebers. China before the price fuckery had a monopoly on rare earths, but after the price fuckery most advanced nations began examining ways they too could get into rare earths. Deep sea nodule mining seems very promising if there is more hijinx from CCP members. Interestingly, China subsidizes the world's rare earth production in another way. Rare earth refining responsibly is pretty expensive, as it produces lots of nasty, nasty biproducts you need to treat. China of course just drills holes and injects that poo poo straight into their own water table, or just pours it into the black sludge lake
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 22:18
|
|
DrAlexanderTobacco posted:It's been ages in the thread since there's been a proper "Who would win US or Russia?" discussion, this is all really good stuff. China wins that one
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 22:43
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:They've already captured the White House though. We have to call in Channing Tatum to sort this mess out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 22:50
|
|
|
Look if we launch all our nukes and everyone else launches all of theirs, then we can destroy our nukes in flight thus guilt tripping the whole world including North Korea into total nuclear disarmament.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 22:52
|
|
|
Geopolitical suicide by cop
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 23:23
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:Geopolitical suicide by cop But were the cop https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1mlCPMYtPk
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 23:43
|
|
|
I'm still hung up on the idea that the F-15's biggest problem is that it's not fast enough. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 23:53
|
|
|
They mad.. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-usa-blacksea-idUSKBN16Z0WD
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 00:00
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Look if we launch all our nukes and everyone else launches all of theirs, then we can destroy our nukes in flight thus guilt tripping the whole world including North Korea into total nuclear disarmament. Pretty sure this was the plot of the last GIjoe movie.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 00:02
|
|
|
That Works posted:I can't envision a scenario where a foreign invading soldier sets foot on American soil and their city back home is not simultaneously transformed into radioactive ash. Come on Nuevo Laredo isn't that bad
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 00:05
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 00:06
|
|
shame on an IGA posted:Come on Nuevo Laredo isn't that bad Haha
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 00:07
|
|
|
ughhhh posted:Pretty sure this was the plot of the last GIjoe movie.  Content: F-18s having issues with oxygen systems. Here's an article with a totally stupid headline and video: https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-03-28/pilots-short-of-oxygen-keep-vexing-boeing-f-18-jet-trump-favors
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 00:15
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Getting more thrust from the F100 is probably possible, but would probably be cost-prohibitive. The best way to get more thrust out of an F100 is to yank it out and stab an F110 back in. both parts of the two component pod are still fitted 0/10 for realism
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 00:42
|
|
|
M_Gargantua posted:All sub-100nm chip fabs? Gone. Kills your ability to make ASEAs. And you've got whatever you've stock piled Would this be an segment where stock piling could be practical and useful? My understanding is that most of the expense in microchips come from design and settings up the manufacturing line. The actual manufacturing of the chips is practically free in comparison. So just make 10 times what is needed of any chip, and then just keep the line running until it is needed for some other chip.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 00:44
|
|
|
No and nobody's going to launch missiles at our fabs. A lot of them are in Boise by the way, not the bay area or particularly close to the coasts. (Also I think my alma mater has a sub-100nm fab but that's neither here nor there)
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 00:52
|
|
|
They do lifetime buys of IC's but I don't think they buy orders of magnitude of spares, just in case. There are a lot of foundries in the US but not many of the sub 60 nm ones. Maybe 20-25% of the worlds source? That said you could look at it like most of the others are safely distributed around the world in neutral or friendly countries. Germany, Canada, Ireland, Singapore and etc... E: there are actually small scale deep sub micron foundries all over the place. Thousands of them in universities, research labs and etc... it would be a tough way to make a million ICs but for a few hundred it could be done. Murgos fucked around with this message at 01:07 on Mar 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 01:03
|
|
|
Our shipyards are hella-vunerable to cruise missile strikes though. So good luck trying to get anything built off from those fab plants off the continent.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 01:09
|
|
|
Just wait till all our poo poo is run by arduinos and raspberries.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 01:09
|
|
|
Stairmaster posted:Our shipyards are hella-vunerable to cruise missile strikes though. So good luck trying to get anything built off from those fab plants off the continent. Assuming we get our mobile SHORAD act together, cruise missiles are not inherently that hard to kill.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 02:10
|
|
|
I don't think air defense is lacking in hampton roads, just saying.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 02:31
|
|
|
Stairmaster posted:Our shipyards are hella-vunerable to cruise missile strikes though. So good luck trying to get anything built off from those fab plants off the continent. Explain how you get a cruise missile to Florida, Virginia, and the West Coast in a way that isn't detectable by current systems and where it's coming from.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 02:52
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:
The only new development here is that the problem is getting worse. It's been a known thing for two decades. As far as I can tell, it's everything using OBOGS: Hornets, Raptors, Harriers... CarForumPoster posted:Explain how you get a cruise missile to Florida, Virginia, and the West Coast in a way that isn't detectable by current systems and where it's coming from. If someone is willing to launch a cruise missile at the CONUS, I don't think they're going to hide it. Not beyond the tactical sense, at least.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 03:04
|
|
|
Let's Read: Charlie Foxtrot - Fixing Defence Procurement in Canada Chapter 5: Fixing Defence Procurement in Canada Nossal suggests three main suggestions to help fix procurement: Craft a defence policy for "easy riders" I'm going to give this one the most attention because it is the most dramatic change and would be deeply troubling to a lot of people: quote:There is little doubt that if Canadian defence spending suddenly rose to the levels of other allies (or even returned to Cold War levels), many of the procurement problems surveyed in this book could be largely made to disappear, since the government would be able to secure much of the equipment needed for the CAF straight off the shelf. quote:As Nils Orvik noted many years ago, Canada has always pursued a strategy of "defence against help" in North America. In other words, one of the reasons that Canadians provide security for North America is so that Canada can retain control of Canadian territory. Beyond air interception capability and maritime surveillance capability, no other aspect of Canadian defence is absolutely required. There is no defined commitment to NATO beyond the general agreement to assist in mutual defence. Canada could easily choose to specialize in any number of areas and still have a valuable contribution to NATO. quote:The process of choosing which capabilities to spend on will always be highly contentious, for there will always be those who will argue that anything less than a "multi-role" armed forces would be problematic. ... The various "tribes" that comprise the armed forces would argue that their particular specialty should of course be continued, mostly on prudential grounds: it makes sense to maintain a full range of military capabilities, it will be said, "because you never know when you will need [insert name of military "tribe" here] to fight the next war." Think strategically, procure strategically This recommendation boils down to "make and regularly update defence white papers." In practice, Canadian defence white papers are purely political exercises, set to distinguish one government from the previous one. Nossal claims that these should be done as geostrategic exercises instead. Currently there exists a wide disconnect between what the papers state and what governments are willing to execute - likely because the cabinets writing these papers defer to the professionals in the defence establishment. This is a dangerous situation, allowing the tail to wag the dog, and when the spending implications become apparent many of the promises in the paper simply are abandoned. This happened in 2008 under the Harper government and previously in 1987 under the Mulroney government. The often decades-long gap between defence policies also contributes to these issues, with no opportunity to gather and integrate feedback to refine policies and resolve issues that arise. A regularly-updated policy document would become useful in guiding defence decisions instead of the symbolic gesture it is now. Don't play politics with procurement Nossal argues that prior to 1993 the two major parties in Canada were united in their views towards defence. The rise of the Bloc Quebecois in 1993 drove deep divisions into almost every party, splintering isolationists from traditionalists in a divide that persists to today. Nossal suggests recreating the old bipartisan views between the Liberals and Conservatives - shutting out the other parties with more self-destructive views - and stopping the political games surrounding every procurement. The claim is that rational self-interested parties would not oppose long-term procurement decisions, since nobody knows who will inherit the project when problems start to occur. Inheritance is a large part of procurement, leading to the ultimate example of Trudeau the younger inheriting Trudeau the elder's Sea King replacement headaches. Nossal proposes a bipartisan standing joint committee composed of Conservatives and Liberals from all sections of Parliament to regularly review and direct defence policy. Somewhat like a political marriage to stop both sides from sniping at each other. And that's that for the book! There remains a postscript and ending, but it's really just a recapitulation of the previous sections. There's an interesting anecdote about the "Enfield Inch" being 0.00040" different from an Imperial inch and ultimately being blamed (falsely) for the Ross rifle's jamming issues in the acknowledgements too. Decoy Badger fucked around with this message at 15:44 on Mar 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 03:25
|
|
|
Godholio posted:The only new development here is that the problem is getting worse. It's been a known thing for two decades. As far as I can tell, it's everything using OBOGS: Hornets, Raptors, Harriers... Isn't OBOGS on like...every military plane? Fighters or not Godholio posted:If someone is willing to launch a cruise missile at the CONUS, I don't think they're going to hide it. Not beyond the tactical sense, at least. As you're suggesting there's just no scenario where that works out short of the US having already invaded them and them trying to retaliate. In which case were already in a war on high alert and so they'll have to "hide" (as in LO) it to prevent it from getting shot down.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 03:25
|
|
|
Captain von Trapp posted:Assuming we get our mobile SHORAD act together, cruise missiles are not inherently that hard to kill. For CONUS attacks, you misspelled Navy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 03:36
|
|
|
Decoy Badger posted:Let's Read: Charlie Foxtrot - Fixing Defence Procurement in Canada Just want to say that I lov d these
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 03:56
|
|
|
CarForumPoster posted:Isn't OBOGS on like...every military plane? Fighters or not OBOGS the system, no. Some form of on-board oxygen generation system, sure.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 04:31
|
|
|
Stairmaster posted:Our shipyards are hella-vunerable to cruise missile strikes though. So good luck trying to get anything built off from those fab plants off the continent. Should that situation occur, I think they could probably allocate an Aegis platform or two to hang around. Either an actual vessel, or one of those land based ones.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 04:45
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Just want to say that I lov d these
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 04:52
|
|
|
Blistex posted:Should that situation occur, I think they could probably allocate an Aegis platform or two to hang around. Either an actual vessel, or one of those land based ones. Or, maybe, the ships in the yard. CIWS is a pretty independent system. If there were missiles flying, I'm sure there'd be boxes of 20mm on the pier in short order, and someone would figure a way to get power and cooling water to the mount. They might even be lucky enough to be the self-destructing 20mm so as not to bombard downtown Portsmouth with tungsten (not that that would be a bad thing, particularly).
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 04:54
|
|
|
babyeatingpsychopath posted:Or, maybe, the ships in the yard. CIWS is a pretty independent system. If there were missiles flying, I'm sure there'd be boxes of 20mm on the pier in short order, and someone would figure a way to get power and cooling water to the mount. They might even be lucky enough to be the self-destructing 20mm so as not to bombard downtown Portsmouth with tungsten (not that that would be a bad thing, particularly). This is an exceptionally awful and impractical idea. And SHORAD is gonna have problems replenishing its stocks of interceptors if they're being utilized in theater. The US is almost at a disadvantage there because we will most likely shift large quantities of supplies into theater to be utilized. Not that that's a bad thing, our active assets stomping on enemy assets until they run out of armament is great, but there are only so many to spare to hedge against a strategic strike on a shipyard or other facility.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 05:24
|
|
|
It's pretty dumb that there isn't an AEGIS Ashore placement at NS Mayport, Norfolk, McGuire AFB, Kitsap, Travis AFB, out on San Clemente Island, North Island, and one at Pearl Harbor. Maybe even Elmendorf.
BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 05:36 on Mar 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 05:30
|
|
|
CarForumPoster posted:Explain how you get a cruise missile to Florida, Virginia, and the West Coast in a way that isn't detectable by current systems and where it's coming from.
Which is really just an edge case of ICBM basing mode debate again. Because we're still arguing about ability to sustain merely conventional war. M_Gargantua fucked around with this message at 05:52 on Mar 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 05:48
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:It's pretty dumb that there isn't an AEGIS Ashore placement at NS Mayport, Norfolk, McGuire AFB, Kitsap, Travis AFB, out on San Clemente Island, North Island, and one at Pearl Harbor. Maybe even Elmendorf. There doesn't need to be aegis ashore in Norfolk or Pearl Harbor etc. There is already an enormous amount of aegis afloat.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 06:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 13:52 |
|
|
Hauldren Collider posted:There doesn't need to be aegis ashore in Norfolk or Pearl Harbor etc. There is already an enormous amount of aegis afloat. Just because there are ships at port doesn't mean they're ready to go at a moment's notice. AEGIS Ashore is. It's also cheaper than keeping a Tico or Burke out in the Chesapeake doing nothing but twiddling their thumbs and loving with the morale of the unlucky skeleton crew. M_Gargantua posted:
[*]Launching from a hijacked or clandestinely-procured container ship. BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 06:14 on Mar 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 06:08
|
|