World, Writing, Wealth discussion
World & Current Events
>
Who has the strongest army?
date
newest »
newest »
message 51:
by
Nik
(new)
Aug 04, 2018 07:52AM
Exactly. Lasers are being considered as a complementing tool to the Dome to lower the costs..
reply
|
flag
I don't think we have any idea about how future wars will be fought because as Michel said, any measure has a counter measure. Against lasers, make your item shiny bright. The simple physics of wave reflection is a defence, and as an aside, lasers are not very efficient at power conversion, and to be effective you need MW. The idea of a portable laser system (other than on something like a ship) is going to be hugely power consumptive. Whatever you come up with, the other side will, given time, come up with a counter. The trick to win is like Blitzkrieg - come up with something fresh and do it quickly, before the others have time to counter.
Scout wrote: "I read all your posts, but I didn't see an answer to my question. If we're able to use drones to target something as small as a vehicle in other countries, why shouldn't we be worried that others h..."The first thing that comes to mind is that the US has a functioning air defense - primarily based around the airforce.
A drone of the size and capacity of a predator or a reaper.
REF: Wiki: Predator: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General...
REF: Wiki: Reaper: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General...
and REF: WIKI: Avenger: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General...
Would probably all show up on someone's radar, and then be intercepted by a pair of F-16s, or something similar.
Of course, the availability of drones of this class appears to be limited to nation states.
Some other scenarios come to mind.[1] Drones that would fit into the back of a 1-tonne pickup truck, with simple line of sight controls, fitted with an explosive package similar to a suicide vest sent through the front window of an office block by a criminal element, lone psycho, or terrorists.
[2] Lone psycho hobbyist hooks up a 9mm Glock to a smallish commercially available drone and goes hunting anyone he doesn't like.
[3] The US.gov extend the kill list, REF:Wiki: Disposition Matrix: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposi... to targets within the CONUS.
All three scenarios would make good starting points for a standard thriller.
Then get writing, Graeme. For what it is worth, I have two novels with drones. In one the prime purpose is to hack/hijack them, and the other just has ordinary drones, except a drone doesn't have to fly. I had a boat packed with explosives, and the hacking of AI driven vehicles was a supply of free vehicles for hackers,.What disturbs me most about the "kill list" and the use of drones is the large number of innocent deaths. The argument by the CIA that every adult male could be a terrorist, and therefore who cares if he is killed and anyway we won't count them as civilians, seems to me to be overly callous.
Ok, I'll bite.Fast forward five years, and Amazon delivery drones are ubiquitous. Joe Numbnut, resident psycho decides to go on a rampage against everyone who's "Against Me!"
He acquires a drone of the same make and model as the Amazon delivery drones, he paints it the same colours and straps on a 9mm Glock.
The rest follows as a detective suspense thriller.
A timely discussion. I gather Nicholas Maduro, President of Venezuela, has just survived an attack by two drones. They were apparently laden with explosive - flying bombs - but the control was less than it might have been. He is accusing Colombia. Not sure if there is any evidence.
Maduro says it was an attack by drones. Latest news says that it could be simply a domestic natural gas or propane explosion in a house near where the political rally was. And how the hell could Maduro know at once who was involved in this supposed attack? Maduro is behaving like the typical paranoid dictator he is.
The information is sketchy, but according to the BBC he looked up just before the explosions so maybe it was drones. According to the BBC, there were two explosions, which I suppose could be sequential explosions. If they were drones, Maduro would have no idea who sent them, but dictators usually blame the suspect that annoys them the most. He may not be paranoid, but he is definitely incompetent and brutal.
For what it is worth, our evening news on TV went with the exploding gas interpretation. The New York Times had photos of military people with blood on their heads, presumably due to this. Right now I have no idea what happened, but I expect we shall find out in due course.
Mamma mia, from a theoretic discussion into a real world. Just like that
Return of the Drones....Latest DARPA drone demonstrating autonomous systems (hence harder to hack, as no command & control link back to a pilot). On the flip side, and data downloaded at the end of the flight will not be real time.
REF: DARPA : https://www.darpa.mil/news-events/201...
The reconnaissance drone can't be turned against you because it has no weapons, but what it radios back can be intercepted so both sides may benefit. As far as the hacking opportunity goes, I think just about anything can be hacked unless it has non-writable instructions, but then it cannot do anything it wasn't programmed to do. If it can recognise something and alter its actions, in principle someone can alter what it sees. Doing it, of course, is another matter.
Back to Maduro, I gather they all looked upwards. There is a video in the NY Times web version. They also claim the fire was the result of a drone crashing into the room and starting a fire. In my opinion, the truth depends on finding (a) bits of drone, or (b) a shattered log canister. I doubt we shall get any real information.
The picture of that building façade, with its blackened windows on the top floors, made it evident what had happened: an accidental gas explosion inside an apartment facing the dais from across the street. Maduro's reaction to look up on hearing the explosion was because the explosion occured on a floor well above ground. The blackened façade is ample evidence of an internal fire in the building. The chances of a drone hitting right where a window was, instead of hitting the outside wall, were quite slim. I believe that Maduro's paranoid mind interpreted the event in a way that would justify his accusations, nothing more. Even the local firefighters reported later (anonymously and unofficially, since Maduro would probably have them arrested for 'treason' later) that it was a simple domestic gas explosion. Nothing to see, folks. Move along, move along!
Remember that drone that crashed into a tree on the grounds of the White House? Too small to be picked up by radar and operated by a guy with no ill intent. With advancements in technology, a small drone could carry a payload, either biological or explosive, that could do damage and be controlled by a terrorist.But if you guys aren't worried about drones, then I'll try to relax.
The strongest army is the one that can coordinate massive movement of troops effectively, respond in real time to changing situations and maintain situational awareness on theater and strategic level.This translates into top-notch communications and intel, immense logistics support (navy and air force), and the ability to protect such assets (naval and air superiority).
There are very few countries that can project on global level this way, and few have all the elements lined up.
The simple answer is:
Global: USA - a good several orders of magnitude ahead of everyone.
Regional/trans-regional: Russia, China (to some extent), Israel, France, UK, and maybe Japan.
The rest are mostly national forces that don't have any ability to sustain operations on any serious level - and by that I mean satellites, reconnaissance, air refueling, air superiority, electronic warfare, highly skilled NCO core, and effective use of combined arms above brigade level.
@Graeme, Lord Kelvin never said that, it's an urban myth.
Igor
Igor wrote: "The strongest army is the one that can coordinate massive movement of troops effectively, respond in real time to changing situations and maintain situational awareness on theater and strategic lev..."How long do you think the US can sustain its dominance?
I am usually good at predicting things, so let's see ... The US really started showing its global dominance around the turn of the 20th century and then confirmed it by ww2. It's steadily increased its influence ever since (with cold war as a good primer).I think, given the economy and industry trends, it will retain this position for at least the next century. The main reason is not that something will bring the US leadership down, it's that the rivals (Russia, China, maybe India) face immense internal problems in being able to create the necessary critical mass to challenge this superiority.
Igor
I would rule out India as a possible future World dominant power. Why? Because of the huge problems it already faces that will only become worse with time (droughts, flash floods, extensive pollution, overpopulation, massive income levels disparities, severe inter-ethnic/class strifes, widespread government corruption, etc.). While India has part of the makings of a superpower (nuclear weapons, strong military), too much of its economy and infrastructure is still backward, while the social mentality of a large part of its population is still poisoned by its old caste system and mysoginy (if you doubt that, just go take a train ride in rural India).
I agree - this is why, despite "raw" numbers, India faces immense challenges in gaining the superpower status.Igor
I am wondering whether anyone qualifies as truly strong. The strong power (like at its peak, the Roman imperial army) is the one that promptly wins its battles AND enforces its imperium. Even the US cannot do this these days. Look at Afghanistan as an example. The US has by far the best means of winning set piece battles, although Russia is sufficiently powerful in the hedgehog style that the US should refuse to take it on as long as Russia does not start a war with it. My view is now nobody can start a war and win it, other than maybe with someone so weak it is in their interests to lose.
If to assess from the angle of destruction capability, US&R hold jointly 90% of world's nukes. I guess this parameter alone paints them a little different from most others..
You are right, Nik, but there are a few other states that otherwise shouldn't worry the rest of the World, except that they possess nuclear weapons and the missiles to carry them quite far. I am talking about Pakistan, India and North Korea. Pakistan and India have had a poisoned relationship from the day Pakistan separated from India, and they fought a number of wars already. A nuclear war between those two countries may not technically touch other nations on Earth, but just the radioactive fallouts from a couple hundred nuclear warheads would render vast tracts of land around them unlivable, would pollute the waters and fish of the Indian Ocean and would also create a forced migration of tens of millions of desperate people. None of those two countries could then be said to have won, only that everybody around them and themselves were losers in this. The same applies with North Korea, where a psychopathic dictator gives very little regards to the general fallouts from his actions and who could launch a nuclear strike if he believes that his regime is in danger of collapsing. As for a nuclear exchange between the USA and Russia, the less I think about the consequences, the better.
Igor wrote: "@Graeme, Lord Kelvin never said that, it's an urban myth...."Good catch - I stand corrected.
Well done.
Cheers Graeme
As far as countries are concerned (or even in general), does money equal power?
Hi Scout, I suspect that money and power go hand in handI.e.
The left hand of money shakes the right hand of power, which then gives it a bit of a crushing grip to show money who is the real boss, then the left hand of money greases the right hand of power which slips off.
Suddenly alone, the left hand of money gets nervous and rushes back into the grip of the right hand of power. The right hand of power, now nicely greased, fondles the left hand of money with more of lust than love.
Feeling unloved, and somewhat dirty, the left hand of money than scratches the right hand of power with a peasant's revolt. The right hand of power then clenches into a fist and pummels the revolt, then snatches furiously at the left hand of money.
The left hand of money gets caught by the right hand of power and is thrown up against a wall. Smoking a last cigarette, the left hand of money espouses an intricate philosophy in an unknown language.
Chortling, the right hand of power pulls the trigger. The right hand of power than spins a new left hand out of thin air, deems it to be money and foists it upon the peasants.
The peasants, still reeling from the last pummeling by the right hand of power, accept the new left hand of money and get on with their lives.
The new left hand of money shakes the right hand of power...
Money (a unit of human labor that can be transacted for valuable goods and services) will always flow from those without power to those with power.This produces the general observable condition of the world where those without power are poor while those with power are rich.
An aptly explained and, may I say, a very depressing truth.
Graeme, I have a feeling Marx would eagerly borrow your metaphorical explanations -:)
As parts of the world hectically reequip themselves with advanced planes and air defenses respectively, who's in the lead of military might?And in this respect, how significant to your opinion is the tolerance of general public to withstand and endure the brunt of war, losses and casualties among their own and on the other side?
The US is unquestionably the most powerful, and nobody else comes close in volume of high tech stuff. After all, the US military budget is over 10 times the Russian budget.If it comes to turning a country to ash, both the US and Russia have that ability, and while some in the US are starting to think that a nuclear exchange would lead to a victory for them, I don't think they really recognise the destructive power of the big nukes. The US had this policy of marching East with a battery of small nukes, kill a few hundred million, but leave the land recoverable. The problem is, Russia can't compete in volume and accuracy so it has to use the big ones, where those problems don't matter.
My guess is that for absorbing and enduring, the US is not so strong, but that would depend on how it got into it. If someone else started it by doing something like Pearl Harbour, Americans would fight until they ended it, but as Afghanistan showed, the American public don't like prolonged irritating wars where they start wondering why they are in them
Well, I listened to a guy today talking about China and, according to him, they're coming close to our military strength. What do you think?
If you want to fight a land war in East Asia, China's numbers have a quality all of their own. The question then is, what are their aircraft defences like. We don't really know. However, the naval situation is the US can always attack China, and China has difficulties attacking the US, other than with very long-range ballistic missiles, and t make any real impact, they have to be nukes. Now nobody wins.
Mamma mia, this incident with Russian Losharik submarine reveals, inter alia, that even the ocean's bottom may have crawling military gadgetry on them
The ocean's bottoms are crawling with all sorts of goodies! Including tons of medieval gold.Igor
Didn't know about the Russian submarine. Have a good link?
Scout wrote: "Didn't know about the Russian submarine. Have a good link?"Maybe this one: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07-0...
Those who like to connect seemingly unconnected events, mention Pence's abrupt return to Washington for urgent consultations while on the way to New Hampshire, around when the sub incident became known -:)
Given that many people are doing something at a given time, it is easy to find someone doing something unexpected when something else goes wrong elsewhere. Correlation does not mean causation.
Ian wrote: "... Correlation does not mean causation."Exactly. Was amused hos some media outlets tried to connect the dots and thought to myself that's how different conspiracy theories are born. On the other hand, given the secrecy surrounding the incident, we are unlikely to know in the nearest future what exactly happened there and what mission went wrong..
I followed the link and found that "Analysts have suggested one of its missions could be disrupting communication cables on the ocean bed." Is this plausible?
Very plausible. We know where the cables are, they don't move, so a submersible could easily cut them. Places like NZ would suffer the most because our cables are far longer than anyone else's.
Well, that's unsettling to know, among many unsettling things these days.
