Nuclear/Biological weapons now the ONLY weapons

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Lord Merciless


That's why I said "IN CASE OF TOTAL WAR". The total war will occur if, for example, a terrorist nuclear attack against New York has been carried out.

Even if the terrorist group responsible is not traced back to a particular country. Will the US just carpet bomb someone they don't like to get revenge?

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by Big Crunch

Even if the terrorist group responsible is not traced back to a particular country. Will the US just carpet bomb someone they don't like to get revenge?

It doesn't have to be a specific country. The ideology of the terrorists should be sufficient.

[MRT144]

so what if its domestic terrorism?

[Dauphin]

Or a nutcase group from an allied nation.

[Pekka]

Lord Merciless, Terrorist ideology is pretty wide concept.. so you should explain what you mean by it?

[DarthVeda]

I most worried about NK becoming the nuclear arms dealer to the world with no reguard to the consequences of proliferation.

[Pekka]

DarthVeda, that's a possibility. Generally speaking, I'm little bit disappointed now.. I was hoping for strong words from Bush now. These dudes are clearly being arrogant and feeling all powerful now, calling out cards.
It's very clear to me that these folks are (not the people, but their leaders) being hostile, definitely NOT co-operative breaking every rule in the book now. So.. I don't get it why they get special treatment. Iraq was a 'threat' with possible WMD's and hostile leader. NK is a real threat in the long run. They HAVE WMD's and have been playing with that program for long time now. Their leaders are not even covering up their hostilities, but throwing them fighting words. I say it's time to put up, or shut up. War against terrorism and rogue states and rule breaking.. should go for every one. If not.. well then it's a big god damn joke.

I say it's time to put those fighters in the air and give ultimatum, the time is now! Or then forever shut up and back up.

[Lazerus]

biological/chemical weapons are useless.

Why not just develop a new bug like SARS, stick it on a suicide 'bomber' and send him into the enemy country ? It wouldn't be detected and the best way to damage a country whos technologically superior is to get at civilian morale.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Lord Merciless
Those RPGs are only useful if the US want to spare the civilians. In a case of total war short of nuclear, the USAF would just MOAB city block by city block.

That's where man-portable SAM missiles come into the picture.

[Dis]

actually I think Bush is doing a good job with NK so far.

He's doing the opposite of Clinton. Clinton gave NK lots of attention after their intention to build nukes. Bush is doing the opposite. We ignored NK

I suspect they are only doing this to strike a deal like last time. Bush has no intention of striking deals with NK to get them not to build nukes.

[GePap]

One needs more than well trained pilots to have an effective air-force. The great advantage of the US is in systems like AWAC's. Lets say you have a nice plane with a missile than can in theory hit something 50 miles away, but the radar system on your plane goes out only 30 miles: well, you can only shoot down anything within 30 miles. Now the other side has the same plane and missiles, but they have a system than can look out 200 miles. Well, then they will be able to launch thier missile out from 50 miles while the other guy has not even seen them. Game over.

The great advantage of the US as well all know is not simply delivering sheer explosives (The Russians can flatten cities as well as we can, so if we go the Lord Merciless route, the Russians are just as powerful as we are in terms of how much they can blindly blow up) but in gathering inof and using it effectively. I think that one place were states could seek development's is in space. If someone worked out a way to knock a few GPS satelites out of the air the uS would be seriously inconvinienced. They could also look into EMP weapons: the uS would be hurt the most from a weapon system that shut down electronics.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by GePap
One needs more than well trained pilots to have an effective air-force. The great advantage of the US is in systems like AWAC's. Lets say you have a nice plane with a missile than can in theory hit something 50 miles away, but the radar system on your plane goes out only 30 miles: well, you can only shoot down anything within 30 miles. Now the other side has the same plane and missiles, but they have a system than can look out 200 miles. Well, then they will be able to launch thier missile out from 50 miles while the other guy has not even seen them. Game over.

It's not that simple. AWAC's are only good at guiding missiles to slow moving or stationary targets. They can't hit fighters worth beans. Besides, AAM's don't have that kind of range anyway.

OTOH, reliance on AWAC's allows the enemy to devise a counter-strategy, which is to use long range anti-radiation missiles against them. It's like poking out your opponent's eye.

[GePap]

The worth of an AWACS, as I said, is knowing were the other guy is first and thus sooting first: this applies to any enemy aircraft. And few states have missiles with the range needed to actually hit an AWACS system, which flies hundreads of miles away from the actual battlefield. I seriously doubt anyone without some serious electronic hardware could do so, certainly not within the capabilities of most states.

[raghar]

This is useless. Russia in 1980 had special air groups trained to get down AEW in heavy resistance. If you wouldn't be fanboy of Russia you could say they could get down just 90/100 of AEW in firs few days of conflict.

And there are antiratiation missiles.
150 nm to get AEW. Have AEW pilots nice sleep?

Antiradiation missiles was developed in Russia, then China, I wouldn't be long until they would be made in other countries.

[Az]

That's where man-portable SAM missiles come into the picture.

wouldn't do much against a b-52.