|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
posted July 28, 2009 11:51 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 11:54, 28 Jul 2009.
|
The morality and ethics of War
The question of whether or not a war can ever be justifiable keeps popping up it seems. What do you think of the justifications for war, behavior in war, prevention of war, and related issues? Here are some of my thoughts about war.
War, a necessary evil
War is the intentional and widespread conflict between communities or nations. Wars have been around for all of recorded history and have been conducted for a variety of reasons. Some just and some unjust.
It would be preferable to solve all conflicts with words rather than force of arms. Unfortunately not all nations or groups can be reasoned with so there is sometimes no alternative to war.
When words fail it would be nice to force an offending nation into negotiations with means such as embargoes and sanctions. But this too often fails and is often not feasible.
This leaves war as the only alternative unfortunately. A war is just if it is fought for a justifiable reason. Such a reason could be to right a wrong or to prevent a wrong from happening (preemptive strike.)
Self Defense or Defense of Others:
Most people accept the right of an individual or nation to self defense.
If a country is invaded by another nation for an unjust reason (land grab for example) it is justifiable to fight back. If the invaded nation does not fight back it will cease to be a nation or will live under the domination of the aggressor as a vassal state.
A war can't be won with merely defensive measures. Offensive actions must be taken. Only by taking up arms can an armed aggressor be driven back and defeated.
Wars are not fought on a HOMM battlefield where only military units are present. Real battlefields usually have both military units and civilians present. Thus civilian casualties often can't be avoided.
Defense of other nations
If an ally or another innocent nation is attacked it is justifiable to defend your ally or to defend another innocent nation. Alliances of non-aggressive nations are one way to suppress the actions of aggressors if the allies make it clear they are willing to go to war against aggressors. The freeing of Kuwait is a good example of this.
Human rights violations
A related idea to the idea of defense of other nations is intervening when a nation is committing severe human rights violations. It is moral to intervene to stop genocide in another nation.. Kosovo is surely a good example of this type of intervention.
Another example is to throw off existing oppression. Such as what occurred in the American Revolution.
Preemptive Strikes
An example of a preemptive strike that would be justifiable is a nation saying they will destroy your nation with nuclear weapons when they obtain them. In that case it would be justifiable to strike to take out their capability to conduct nuclear weapons research or to produce a change of regimes.
Examples are Iran threatening to turn Israel (and the US) into a nuclear wasteland and N Korea threatening to attack the US with nuclear weapons. Neither the US nor Israel have taken action yet but they would be justified in doing so.
Israel conducted a preemptive strike (the Six Day War) when the Arab nations gathered their armies at Israel's border.
Conducting wars on nations that use proxies to attack other nations
It is justifiable to conduct a war on a nation that uses secondary groups to attack a nation or group of people. For example, nations that use terrorist groups to attack Western nations. The terrorist groups are being wielded as a weapon by those countries.
And example of this is Reagan striking Libia under the Qadhafi regime. Libia had sponsored terrorists against the US. They stopped doing so.
Use of "hit squads"
I see no problem with using a hit squad to take out leaders of nations that are aggressors in order to prevent a war or stop a war that nation started. For example, if a dictator says he will nuke another nation when he obtains nuclear weapons it is surely justifiable to kill him and force a regime change rather than have to conduct a war that will result in the loss of many innocent lives.
Proportional response vs Overwhelming Force
What does this even mean? How can you fight a war that is "proportional response?" Carefully count how many of your soldiers that the enemy kills and only allow your soldiers to kill that many? Only sink the number of enemy ships that your enemy sinks of your ships?
No, war is fought to be won. If your war is just use overwhelming force to end it as soon as possible. It is not possible to conduct a "nice" war. "War is hell." Always has been. Always will be. Overwhelming force ultimately saves human life and the rebuilding and reconciliation can begin sooner.
When Japan attacked the US the US used overwhelming force when it manufactured two nuclear bombs. The war ended two days after the second bomb with the surrender of the aggressor. Now the US and Japan have been reconciled and are allies.
Conclusion
War is a grave matter that should be entered into with deliberation and dread. The taking of human life is not to be done lightly. However, since war is at times unavoidable a nation should "walk softly but carry a big stick." And it is nice to have allies who do the same.
There are times when war is not only morally permissible but morally necessary.
|
|
antipaladin
Promising
Legendary Hero
of Ooohs and Aaahs
|
|
posted July 28, 2009 12:14 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If an ally or another innocent nation is attacked it is justifiable to defend your ally or to defend another innocent nation. Alliances of non-aggressive nations are one way to suppress the actions of aggressors if the allies make it clear they are willing to go to war against aggressors. The freeing of Kuwait is a good example of this.
No. street rules. if alliance of none aggressors free kuwait,but alliance of agreesors strike the none agressors?
they will be blaimed ? im not condeming it,im reminding you of ww1-2.
Quote:
A related idea to the idea of defense of other nations is intervening when a nation is committing severe human rights violations. It is moral to intervene to stop genocide in another nation.. Kosovo is surely a good example of this type of intervention.
Another example is to throw off existing oppression. Such as what occurred in the American Revolution.
such allegedily happens in palastine. would you say a war with israel is inhebitvtale?
Quote:
An example of a preemptive strike that would be justifiable is a nation saying they will destroy your nation with nuclear weapons when they obtain them. In that case it would be justifiable to strike to take out their capability to conduct nuclear weapons research or to produce a change of regimes.
Examples are Iran threatening to turn Israel (and the US) into a nuclear wasteland and N Korea threatening to attack the US with nuclear weapons. Neither the US nor Israel have taken action yet but they would be justified in doing so.
Israel conducted a preemptive strike (the Six Day War) when the Arab nations gathered their armies at Israel's border
not excally the six day war was conducted more then preemptive. the'yre war other signs too (soviat mig training to the egyptions). and now with the iranian thread,should we conduct a war?
Quote:
It is justifiable to conduct a war on a nation that uses secondary groups to attack a nation or group of people. For example, nations that use terrorist groups to attack Western nations. The terrorist groups are being wielded as a weapon by those countries.
And example of this is Reagan striking Libia under the Qadhafi regime. Libia had sponsored terrorists against the US. They stopped doing so.
Iran,syria,lebnon?
Quote:
I see no problem with using a hit squad to take out leaders of nations that are aggressors in order to prevent a war or stop a war that nation started. For example, if a dictator says he will nuke another nation when he obtains nuclear weapons it is surely justifiable to kill him and force a regime change rather than have to conduct a war that will result in the loss of many innocent lives.
no,i dissagree,it provokes war,revange accures.
so let me get this staigth,if i israel decides to attack iran and syria and lebnon and will take lands,it will be morrally justifide.
remind me again why the spenish look for officers of the solid led opperation to cort for crimes of war?
____________
types in obscure english
|
|
Totoro
Famous Hero
in User
|
|
posted July 28, 2009 12:40 PM |
|
|
|
As long as people don't have a strong morale to guide everyone's lives we can expect wars in the future.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted July 28, 2009 01:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
War, a necessary evil
War used to create a way to utilize overproduction. That was "discovered" ages ago, but it changed a bit in modern times. Is it necessary? no. Is it beneficial? Depends.
The nature of war changed to a point where it's simply not beneficial to do a frontal assault anymore. See US. The more modern stuff you use, the more it costs. How many ak-47s you can produce out of money used for a single f-22? A lot. A very BIG lot. And what is more dangerous in urban areas, in the "asymmetric warfare"? The ability to throw a surprise burst at unexpecting soldiers (or civilians), or to use a high-end jet that is utterly worthless against single people mingled in between civilians?
There are a few scenarios. One includes a stereotypical "country vs. country" war, where men and tanks meet on huge battlefield. That kind of scenario died and never will be resurrected, most likely. The main limiting factor is logistics. Tanks use horrible amounts of petrol, and require refueling often. Without fuel, they are scraps of useless junk. With petrol being more and more expensive, the cost of such operations exceeds every potential benefit of invading someone. See US. The costs of war operation are huge, and the tanks, even though relatively modern (talking about Abrams tank here), consume 450 liters of petrol every 100 km in a non-demanding environment (!).
so what can you do? In a modern war, tanks would be very useless and fuel transporters would be attacked all the time. Without tanks, on the other hand, it's impossible to occupy cities, other vehicles are too susceptible to RPGs and mines, and people... well, AK-47 in every house, and war becomes hell to all sides. And no modern nation wants to lose so many men.
Modern nations counter each other, so real war may only take place in form of asymmetric warfare vs. "bandit countries". Which is a pain in the butt and brings no benefit.
So, in modern times, war isn't necessary. At all. It's like in Orwell's "1984". There is a point where countries can no longer effectively capture terrain or even do significant damage without nuking themselves to oblivion, and at that point it no longer matters whether the countries are still at war or at peace. Permanent war equals permanent peace (!), and while it sounds absurd, there indeed is some nice logic behind this.
Quote:
Self Defense or Defense of Others:
To be honest, modern "army" isn't very good at defense. Simply because it would be much better to scrap most of land vehicles and develop an extended stealth-detecting radar system (even Ukrainian "kolczuga" radar system could detect american stealth jets.. and that's a 90's technology.) with adequate anti air power (mostly ground-based) and a system of anti-ballistic "shields". That paired with natural terrain usage (artillery posts, bunkers), and a big group of anti-armor choppers operating at their intended range (as low as possible) would simply negate ANY attempt of attack, no matter how well organized. If you can't bombard anything because anti-air system is too tough, you must go by land, and we all know how helpless it feels for a regular land army to face dedicated anti-armor and anti-personnel techniques.
And a missile is infinitely cheaper than one F-22. If you can see the stealth jet, he's a sitting duck. You don't even need your own jets to bring him down.
Sea defense is a bit more tricky, though, but let's assume we're talking about a country without access to sea, for simplicity's sake.
So.. Keeping an army is a relic of the past, necessary for "peacekeeping occupations", though. NATO demands regular army capable of aggression. This means tanks, mobile artillery and all sorts of impractical stuff, and the cash that would do much better for real DEFENSE systems.
Quote:
Defense of other nations
This is problematic. If countries developed into impenetrable fortresses as I suggested above, conventional attack would be a suicide. The only thing countries should share in such situations should be the antiballistic system, because balistic missiles are mainly a threat towards civilians, and defense systems of each country should cooperate to protect civilian life at all costs.
Quote:
Human rights violations
Every war ends with massive human rights violations. it doesn't matter whether those are civilized Americans or "primitive" terrorists. That's why conventional war is a relic of the past. We don't need it anymore.
The question, however, is, whether to intervene or not when another country is being repressed by a local tyrant (Korean Kim, for example). If we completely get rid of armies capable of aggression, there will never be a way to stop such a criminal.
I think it would be best to extend the idea of ONZ's "peacekeeper" forces. An army that would not belong to any nation, commanded by all of them. That would be the only force capable of attacking. It would neutralize every local tyrant, including those tiny African chieftains.
Such an army would be supervised by cameras and journalists, simply to repress primitive atavism to rape everything on sight after capturing a city.
Quote:
Preemptive Strikes
Only with mutli-national forces, never with US army. We don't need US army anywhere but in US, defending their land.
Peacekeeping forces should destroy all kinds of tyranny and terrorism before it can get as big as North Korean Regime. It's better to prevent rather than heal.
Quote:
Conducting wars on nations that use proxies to attack other nations
The problem with terrorism is that it's theoretically aimed at civilians only. Thus, it's not war-related. Properly constructed defense system would be impenetrable, though, and bomb attacks are more of a police problem. Thus, it's not related to war and terrorism should not be a justification for aggression.
Quote:
Use of "hit squads"
No, just no. Killing someone like Kim wouldn't put an end to North Korean misery. There is still a huge machinery of State that works there, to put an end to a threat you would have to put an end to the ENTIRE political system, that includes all kinds of generals, politicians and such. Representative figures such as Kim aren't the main problem, and it's a failure to think so.
Quote:
Proportional response vs Overwhelming Force
Developing a proper "defense only" system would turn overwhelming force into overwhelming list of casualties. It doesn't matter whether you have 10 tanks or 1000 if there is a nice anti-tank trench hidden before them. They will all be halted. This is an example, ofc, but in modern warfare, most stuff works like paper-scissors-rock.
Quote:
Conclusion
My only conclusion is that nations simply go in wrong direction, constantly trying to develop more advanced aggressions systems rather than focusing on defense. (and attempts on doing so make Putin threaten the world, because he wants his stupid terror missiles too much).
War isn't necessary and is a waste of time, money and lives. It used to be beneficial, because of plunder and so, but now, it's a burden, economical failure. Times where you could throw 100 tanks per day out of assembly line are over. Now the stuff is too expensive and elitaristic to give ordinary people hundreds of work places - mass production is no longer army's main way, thus, the final "benefit" of war - giving a lot of employment - is gone.
There is no reason to develop national aggression forces altogether. A multi-national prevention force and united defense systems would put an end to war for good, because countries would be untouchable, but incapable of aggression (and wouldn't think of one, because there would be absolutely NO benefit - too much casualties.)
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted July 28, 2009 02:50 PM |
|
|
The morality of ethics? 
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted July 28, 2009 03:59 PM |
|
|
Apparently your view of wars boils down to justifying every war the USA has ever led and every war atrocity it ever committed.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted July 28, 2009 04:07 PM |
|
|
Hmm
Some might say war is a simple and necessary process of evolution
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
Azagal
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Smooth Snake
|
|
posted July 28, 2009 04:15 PM |
|
|
Woaw woaw woaw... do I understand you correctly that with "evolution" you mean it in the sense Darvin coined it? As in "Survival of the fittes" (fittest actually being the one who has the most succesors in the next generation not the "strongest" as many think)?
Do you (or the "some" you are talking about) mean to say that by war we'll evolve into something better? As in the "stronger" survives?
I'm not being ironic or anything I honestly wasn't sure how you ment that "evolution" part.
____________
"All I can see is what's in front of me. And all I can do is keep moving forward" - The Heir Wielder of Names, Seeker of Thrones, King of Swords, Breaker of Infinities, Wheel Smashing Lord
|
|
veco
Legendary Hero
who am I?
|
|
posted July 28, 2009 04:37 PM |
|
|
I think he meant it this way - military does a lot of research on their own which later on may be introduced to civil manufacturers. Examples? GPS comes to mind first, it's not hard to find many more. War doesn't create this process however, it speeds it up.
As to the topic - Doom nailed it nicely, piece by piece but thinking that countries are unreachable fortresses is something I cannot agree with. While physically that's close to the truth there is(will be) still informatic warfare. No bloodsheed required.
____________
none of my business.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 28, 2009 04:49 PM |
|
|
Quote:
To be honest, modern "army" isn't very good at defense. Simply because it would be much better to scrap most of land vehicles and develop an extended stealth-detecting radar system (even Ukrainian "kolczuga" radar system could detect american stealth jets.. and that's a 90's technology.) with adequate anti air power (mostly ground-based) and a system of anti-ballistic "shields". That paired with natural terrain usage (artillery posts, bunkers), and a big group of anti-armor choppers operating at their intended range (as low as possible) would simply negate ANY attempt of attack, no matter how well organized. If you can't bombard anything because anti-air system is too tough, you must go by land, and we all know how helpless it feels for a regular land army to face dedicated anti-armor and anti-personnel techniques.
1) There are "bunker busters" you know?
2) You overestimate the power of SAM batteries or anti-air defenses. Sure they may be good against an average jet, but they won't hold off a rocket or some supersonic jets. (not that the latter can have a large load though)
In some cases, the American B-52 Spirit was very successfully used in Iraq -- sure iraq isn't very well developed in anti-air defense, but it did have anti-air defenses.
3) I think you missed the ICBMs. And i'm not talking necessarily about nuke warheads.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 28, 2009 04:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I think he meant it this way - military does a lot of research on their own which later on may be introduced to civil manufacturers. Examples? GPS comes to mind first, it's not hard to find many more. War doesn't create this process however, it speeds it up.
Nah that's the same propaganda that NASA uses.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Darkshadow
Legendary Hero
Cerise Princess
|
|
posted July 28, 2009 04:52 PM |
|
|
Psst, death, there is no such thing is B52 spirit  .
And doom, defensive warfare, if anything, is obsolete.
And it has been obsolete since WW2
And you can easily overcome guerilla warfare
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 28, 2009 05:01 PM |
|
|
Oh yeah oops I meant B-2 Spirit 
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted July 28, 2009 05:40 PM |
|
|
Quote:
1) There are "bunker busters" you know?
Yeah. But bunkers wouldn't be my 1st line of defence, or anything. Just mentioned them as a possible use of environment.
Quote:
2) You overestimate the power of SAM batteries or anti-air defenses. Sure they may be good against an average jet, but they won't hold off a rocket or some supersonic jets. (not that the latter can have a large load though)
Are you joking? Just because "rogue contries" have sucky air defense doesn't mean those stealth supersonic jets are that good.
Some facts:
1. a missile always goes faster than a jet
2. a missile can be tricked, but multiple missiles are harder and technically advanced missiles are even more harder.
3. Jets can't hold too much missiles and flying radars are inferior to stationary
4. Thus, a ground based barrage of accurate missiles + ground targeting >>> all air ways of doing so.
Since modern air combat is "who has farther range and more accurate missiles", ground systems are better as air as long as stealth is negated.
Quote:
In some cases, the American B-52 Spirit was very successfully used in Iraq -- sure iraq isn't very well developed in anti-air defense, but it did have anti-air defenses.
Vietnam era SAM missiles ? You call THAT an anti air defense against 2 billion per unit stealth bomber ? Without a way to detect it 
Quote:
3) I think you missed the ICBMs. And i'm not talking necessarily about nuke warheads.
I wasn't talking about nukes only either. By ballistic missiles I understand all kind of short/medium/long range missiles. I know it's not a proper definition but damn, who cares.
@DarkShadow: What WW2 'obsoleted' many things, like battleships. But don't forget that it was the first major war that included real air units. They were a novelty.
They are no longer a novelty today. Believe what you want but US jets are mainly based on "stealth" and mainly directed against rogue countries without advanced radar systems. Against countries like - say - Russia, their main advantage is based on longer range of air-air missiles and better radar/targeting systems, allowing them to attack before the other jets can get into range, thus winning every time.
This obviously wouldn't work so well against specialized anti-air defenses with longer range, better radars and better targeting, also an armor that would withstand incoming missiles. Look, we are slightly deluded in that field: it's because US are "the good guys" and we're thinking what to do about Korean armies or such. Since pretty much only US is having those stealth jets of fifth generation, any nation trying to discover anything against those would have to work - right now - against US, and those advanced enough are actually allied with US, so why would they
Defensive strategy never failed, but was improperly executed at WW2 if that's what you mean - also, times changed, you won't win a war by throwing 10000 rusted tanks and throwing them all into major offensive. Against masses, defense never works that well, but masses are no longer effective.
Proper environment usage is extremely deadly. See Vietnam.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted July 28, 2009 05:43 PM |
|
|
It's easy to analyze a given hypothetical confict and say, "Well this type is OK" and "This type isn't." Unfortunately, in the real world, the causes of wars are not one dimentional and even after the just settles and the dismembered corpses have rotted to dust, historians cannot usually agree about what actually led to the violence in the first place. Add to that the fact that the victor usually gets to write history, and it's virtually impossible to point to any real conflict and say, "Yes, this war was justified."
I think the only real conclusion you can make is that War is Hell and it should never be the first option taken.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 28, 2009 05:50 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Are you joking? Just because "rogue contries" have sucky air defense doesn't mean those stealth supersonic jets are that good.
If we're talking about new stuff:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-24
Quote:
1. a missile always goes faster than a jet
It doesn't start with the momentum of a jet.
Quote:
2. a missile can be tricked, but multiple missiles are harder and technically advanced missiles are even more harder.
The jet has missiles too.
Quote:
3. Jets can't hold too much missiles and flying radars are inferior to stationary
Obviously, I wasn't talking about jet-vs-missile. A few jets can be sacrificed to destroy a tactical destination. The Fortress is not impenetrable at all -- impenetrable means you can't destroy it, not that you will need to sacrifice a few aircraft to destroy it.
This is NOT what I would call impenetrable. It's like saying the WW2 American army was impenetrable because the japanese were using kamikaze sacrifices.
In fact in many parts of war, these days (and always has been this way) offense is much cheaper than defense. A modern ICBM has multiple warheads also which are hard to detect when deployed.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Darkshadow
Legendary Hero
Cerise Princess
|
|
posted July 28, 2009 05:57 PM |
|
|
Doom, all you have in mind is AA and radar, and modern AA defences, even those employed by the US, suck.
Radars are extremely good for covering your airspace, but you need Jet's of your own best the enemy, AA batteries just don't cut it.
And the theory about turning your nation to a massive maginot line just isn't going to work.
____________
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted July 28, 2009 06:05 PM |
|
|
Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-24
What does a Russian ballistic missile has to do with rogue countries' air defense?
Quote:
It doesn't start with the momentum of a jet.
Not that it actually matters when the missiles like AMRAAM have 75 km range.
Quote:
The jet has missiles too.
Yeah, like a few JDAMs.
Quote:
Obviously, I wasn't talking about jet-vs-missile. A few jets can be sacrificed to destroy a tactical destination. The Fortress is not impenetrable at all -- impenetrable means you can't destroy it, not that you will need to sacrifice a few aircraft to destroy it.
What if you have more anti-air stations (heavily armored, underground, with missile defense system like AEGIS and capable of firing many missiles) then your attacker has jets?
Trust me, they would be much cheaper. Would you lose all F-22s and all pilots to destroy like half of them? what next? Assuming they would be technically advanced enough so only newest weaponry would do good against them (aka biggest range, best tracking).
Quote:
This is NOT what I would call impenetrable. It's like saying the WW2 American army was impenetrable because the japanese were using kamikaze sacrifices.
To me, "impenetrable" simply means any assault can't beat it.
Quote:
In fact in many parts of war, these days (and always has been this way) offense is much cheaper than defense. A modern ICBM has multiple warheads also which are hard to detect when deployed.
Well, actually no, not unless you're talking about fire and forget type of missiles (which already aren't the best against newest AEGIS systems). Again, a single F-22 costs.. well.. a lot, while the best counter - a stationary anti-air/anti-missile system - would be much cheaper obviously because:
1. no stealth technology
2. no fuel consumption
3. integrated targeting between all of them: only 1 system needed -> no need for complex devices in every of those stations
Not to mention: easier to maintain, easier to build, much harder to destroy, and so on.
Darkshadow: modern US AA defenses must suck. Why would they need to work on them if nobody else has fifth generation air superiority fighters except them, lol... US army is aggression based, if you haven't noticed.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 28, 2009 06:11 PM |
|
|
Quote:
What does a Russian ballistic missile has to do with rogue countries' air defense?
This missile gets through American anti-air defenses and your beloved AEGIS and is supposed to do so for a long time. (2050)
Quote:
Not that it actually matters when the missiles like AMRAAM have 75 km range.
The detection isn't always that far to scale up.
Quote:
What if you have more anti-air stations (heavily armored, underground, with missile defense system like AEGIS and capable of firing many missiles) then your attacker has jets?
You can't. Even if you have a gazillion missiles, you won't be able to stop even a simple multi-nuke warhead ICBM with a good chance (that is, above 75%). The defense capability doesn't scale linearly with the number of missiles, but more like logarithmically.
Quote:
To me, "impenetrable" simply means any assault can't beat it.
Sacrifice or no sacrifice, it can be beat.
As for the jets having missiles i meant that you'll have to counter those missiles if they are fired, not necessarily that they will use their missiles to get down your anti-air missiles.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted July 28, 2009 06:19 PM |
|
|
Quote:
[This missile gets through American anti-air defenses and your beloved AEGIS and is supposed to do so for a long time. (2050)
mate, AEGIS was never intended to stop Intercontinental Missiles. It's a ship protection system against ship-ship missiles and air-ship.
Quote:
The detection isn't always that far to scale up.
So be it 60 or 50 km. Still, momentum doesn't matter. It's not a movie where the pilot has to see other pilot's tail to hit him.
Quote:
You can't. Even if you have a gazillion missiles, you won't be able to stop even a simple multi-nuke warhead ICBM with a good chance (that is, above 75%). The defense capability doesn't scale linearly with the number of missiles, but more like logarithmically.
We can't go by that logic. Because it leads to a conclusion that nothing can stop a massive simultaneous nuclear attack, so all forms of defense are worthless, or even dangerous, because they make your enemy use "the final solution" when faced with your impenetrable defense.
And I don't need to explain why would it fail. Besides, a nuclear war will never happen, I think. Who would be mad enough to destroy their countries? Since firing such missiles automatically means the other side also does it.
So "impenetrable" obviously doesn't take massive nuclear holocaust into consideration, but why should it? AFAIK nothing can stop that, should we disband armies and stack nukes?
Quote:
Sacrifice or no sacrifice, it can be beat.
As for the jets having missiles i meant that you'll have to counter those missiles if they are fired, not necessarily that they will use their missiles to get down your anti-air missiles.
That's what those AEGIS-like systems are for. Jets will never have them, obviously, but stationary systems and warships will. Compared to a warship, however, a stationary system can be much tougher. And it can't sink.
The only bad thing is: it's immobile, can't be used in aggression. And that's why I think humanity is going in wrong direction. Because aggression is still top priority.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 1 
