1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

US "super" weapons

Discussion in 'SC Archive' started by sedm1000, 1 Jul 2003.

  1. sedm1000

    Mobster

    Joined: 19 Oct 2002

    Posts: 3,244

  2. Manlove is my forte

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 9,637

    Location: Xbox Live

    Although I think that kind of weapon is a bit unethical in the fact the US will have a weapon trained upon any nation it chooses I dont see there being anything the rest of the world could do.

    America is currently strong enough to take on the rest of the world an win.

    With weapons like its planning no nation would dare to contest America in the UN building let alone on a battlefield.
     
  3. afraser2k

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 7,513

    Location: Glasgow

    It'll only be regulated if one of the un-friendly powers gets hold of the technology. Until then the US will keep development going.
     
  4. VaderDSL

    Capodecina

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 15,251

    Location: Manchester

    at least they wont be able to attach nukes to them.
     
  5. pengwinzz

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 17 Oct 2002

    Posts: 1,087

    what makes you think that? (i might have missed something in that article btw)
     
  6. dirtydog

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 47,398

    Location: Essex

    They can already reach anywhere on the globe with ICBM nukes from the USA, can't they?

    Anyway this sounds like 'star wars' / missile defence in reverse.. I'm sceptical that it could work, but one thing that is for sure: the US will do it if they want to, regardless of what anyone else says about it. Also the UK will give their full support. That's the only sure thing :rolleyes: :D
     
  7. Jaz

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 11 Feb 2003

    Posts: 1,603

    who is the unfriendly powers?

    i do tend to like the USA and do wish to live there when i'm older. however if the USA have this tech while i'm living in another country with little means of defence (read UK) i'm going to feel very unsafe if some fool gets to power in either countries (UK (insert other country here) or USA)
     
  8. chenko

    Mobster

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 3,883

    USA vs The World... proving the world worked together, USA would disappear.
     
  9. Mr_Sukebe

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 23 Dec 2002

    Posts: 9,045

    Location: London

    Frankly I can't see as how it makes a big difference to what the US already has in many ways.

    At the end of the day, it's simply a cheaper way of "projecting force" at great ranges.
    The US can already do this with either it's carrier forces or it's B2 bombers.
    I'm sure I remember reading that B2s were used against Iraq, whilst operating from the US, hardly a quick 500 mile flight.

    The key point about the listed technology is that the inference is that it would be faster to deploy, unmanned (unlike a carrier force) and cheaper to maintain over a period of time.


    In many ways I don't see it making much difference to US capabilities. It already has the technological lead, this will just maintain it. So in a stand up fight, "so what"?

    What it clearly doesn't address is the lessons that have been learnt by US enemies of the last 30 years. The US are clearly NOT beatable on the battlefield. Where they are weak is against guerilla warefare, as shown in Vietnam, now in Iraq, and also at home. Whilst they US is spending billions developing "Star Wars", just what is there to prevent a terrorist sailing a yaught into New York harbour with a nuke on board??
     
  10. Manlove is my forte

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 9,637

    Location: Xbox Live

    Sadly you are wrong. I read somewhere that the most accurate way to determine military strength is to measure military spending. America spends more than the rest of the world combined.

    Think about it the US (with a little help from us) captured a whole country in under a month. and the other country had one of the largest armies in the world (4th iirc)

    America is an unstoppable nation and its army navy and air force are all so much more advanced than any other countries, probably more advanced than the rest of the worlds military force combined.
     
  11. dirtydog

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 47,398

    Location: Essex

    You're saying Iraq had the 4th largest army in the world? Well if they did, it was in numbers only.. in terms of capabilities it must have ranked about 100th best in the world. A few rusty 1960s Soviet tanks which fetch £5000 on the open market compared to the hi-tech armour and firepower of the coalition.. like using a nuclear bomb to crush an acorn.
     
  12. Christo

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 28 Oct 2002

    Posts: 9,453

    Location: Returning some videotapes

    If you had the best army and were the only superpower and wanted to keep military supremacy would you do the same? - I think you would.

    Iraq had the 4th largest army in the world before the 1991 Gulf war btw - not before the last war.

    Why should this be banned? Its not much difference from what they have anyway! - Whos going to stop them and how? Why do we need to stop them?
     
    Last edited: 1 Jul 2003
  13. dirtydog

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 47,398

    Location: Essex

    What would I personally do if I was the president of the US? I would slash military spending and spend it on worthy goals like improving the lot of the world's poor, but that's a different thread. It might even make America some friends instead of enemies, for a change.

    On the last point, I agree that there is nobody that can stop America doing whatever it wants.
     
  14. theleg

    Capodecina

    Joined: 17 Oct 2002

    Posts: 13,417

    Location: UK

    Thats what America has been trying to do with regard to nuclear weapons but gets blasted for it :/

    No, I dont think it should be banned..Regulated, sure. By the UN, or a revised version of the UN :)

    Massively powerful weapons shouldnt be allowed to fall into the hands of those who would use them for naughty things..Whether you believe America will use such a weapon for naughty purposes depends on your existing point of view.
     
  15. Christo

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 28 Oct 2002

    Posts: 9,453

    Location: Returning some videotapes

    If you got your wish Amerticas crumbling military would no longer be able to 'police' the world, other armies/other powers weould step in its place - who would you want!?
     
  16. Multitech

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 357

    Firstly, as has been pointed out, The US, and most Western Nations, have a global reach through their ICBM capabilities. Each of these weapons does not have to be launched with a Nuclear warhead. Every Titan, Posiedon and similar MIV weapons are capable of lofting nearly 6 tons into low Earth Orbit. This means they can strike a target within 90 minutes anywhere on the globe.

    All this talk of 20 years to develope such a vehicle is bunkum. I think you will find that much of that "freely available" informationn is designed to do no other than confuse, mislead and mis-inform the populous at large and the US's enemies.

    If the US wnated to be really nasty to an aggressor, all they really nead to do is Build one of the old Saturn 5 launch vehicles (as used for Apollo landings) and put 100 tonnes of HE on the top in a heat shields device. The Saturn 5 was capable of lofting 106 tonnes of payload up to 230 miles above the surface, or sending 65 tonnes to Lunar orbit.

    Over 95% of the technology to do what the article speaks of exists today, has done for many years and the only thing that stops its use is this.

    The International Ban on the deployment of Weapons in Low or High Earth Orbit 1973

    Whilst this treaty does allow for ground based weapons to use space as a means of getting to their target, it specifically bans vehicles capable of "trajectory Modification after launch". This would mean that the Unpiloted launch vehicles they speak of would require the scrapping of this international agreement if they used anything other than point to point targeting, as with ICBM's currently deployed.

    Kronologic

    I think you will find that if a war began as you visualised it, The US versus everyone else, then the US, whilst capable of inflicting tremendous damage to others, would find itself on the losing side.

    The claim that the US spends more on defence that all the other nations of the world combined is frankly absurd, and the saurce of that information needs to join the rest of planet Earth in the real world. If you look at the combined Military capabilities of the 15 major EU states, you will find our Armed forces are more than 5 times that of the US, we are equipped with much the same technology and weaponary. What Eurpoe lacks is the strategic abilities of the US Airforce, however in the modern world against equals, that advantage is largely irrelevent.

    By the way, you also forgot the 60 million Chinese Military strength, not to mention their huge arsenal of conventional and Nuclear weapons. They can afford to lose huge number of men and machines before it would drastically harn their fighting strength, similar to the Russians in WWII.

    Anyway, the argument is mute as it would never happen anyway.
     
  17. dirtydog

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 47,398

    Location: Essex

    You misread what I said.. I said I would slash military spending. It is entirely possible to cut billions off the defence budget in the US, while still retaining massive military superiority over everyone else. Of course I would not slash it to the point where the military was crippled or crumbling - I never said that. Maybe you don't realise just how MASSIVE the US defence budget is right now! It is gargantuan.
     
  18. thebrasso

    Soldato

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 5,312

    not always the case....the Soviet Union had a massive armed forces, relatively modern equipment (not on par with but capable of threatening NATO forces) and still got badly beaten in Afghanistan, against an irregular force that received very limited aid from the west-stinger portable SAM's were't present for the first couple of years, they then proved decisive.
     
  19. Multitech

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 357

    Regarding Military Spending.

    Just to illuminate what Dirtydog was alluding too.

    According to Defence sources, the Annual US Military Budget is made up as follows. (This is an average spend, so exact figures vary year on year)

    Personel Costs: 15.6 %
    Procurement: 8.8%
    Maintenance: 8.15%
    R&D: 27.75%
    Pensions and Payments:26.89%
    Unclassified: 12.81%


    From the above you can see that the break-down gives a clearer indication of the US thinking. The two largest percentages, over 55% of the total, are taken up on R&D and Pensions and compensation etc. This is in marked contrast to many other Western Forces. The UK's annual R&D budget runs to a little over 5% of the total Defence Budget, whilst pensions and payments is taken up by Social Services.

    Direct comparisons are only possible when all factors are considered. Assuming a HUGE budget means a large, powerful Military is misleading (although I agree the US military is both large and powerful)
     
  20. Nana

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 9 Nov 2002

    Posts: 1,342

    heh personally I see little problem with developing weapon theory. A lot of useful advances have come from the manhatten project. The problem comes with the building and testing of prototypes. In an ideal world R&D would occur with no intention of weapon development. Like the chinese from an historical point of view at least. The chinese had gunpowder for about 1400 years before everyone else and they chose to make fireworks not guns... at the time they didn't have any expansionist desires so didn't need to develop weapons.

    It would be desirable obviously for these weapons to be restricted and infact banned outright, missile technology allows for a detached warfare which is seen as somehow more acceptable. Is there an organisation capable of stopping the US? well if it came to it, and the UN voted unanimously, I would expect most of europe and naturally all of asia to immediately start economic sanctions on the US.. an economic war would come first, as the US in military terms is too strong to feasably attack, especially with an unhinged president with massive nbc capacity.

    I think the implementation, if it occurs, of a global missile strike capacity facility, installed within the US is a deeply frightening prospect.