Peter Cairns

Oh and before I forget, if the US involves, Japan and Korea, then the possibility that China might bring in North korea to make the US fight on two fronts. the other thing is the last time I looked, narrow as it is, China has aland boarder with Afghanistan, so they could well cause trouble their too, and if they team up with India Pakistan comes in to the firing line. All good reasons to suspect that people would be as reluctant to get involved in a "Chinese Matter", as they were over Iraq... Peter.

Of course if it comes to bombing pipelines, China has more than enough MRBM's which with a 2-3,000kg conevtional warhead and a 100m CEP can within 30minutes destroy every oil terminal and refinery in all of the US allied Gulf states. So far all of the people who think the Chinese would loose hands down have been limiting what the Chinese might do to within the Taiwan straits area, while letting the US act Globally. It's also worth noting that, there is no great love of the US in either Korean or Japanese society, and that as a result of WW2 and event before, neither Korea or taiwan particularly like the Japanese. Given the economic changes that SE asia has undergone in the last decade, I would be wary of seeing the US allies there as being like Nato. There are alot of reasons for thenm to want to sit on the fence and call it a "chinese" matter. Not least of which is that if the US hits bases on the Chinese mainland, then Chinahas the ballistic missiles to hit US bases in Japan and Korea. As with europe if it gets too hot, the First nuke isn't going to hit the US but one of it's allies. Thats a big price for someone to pay in a war that they don't want to fight and is probably not in there interest. Peter.

Caash, At no point did I critcise your figure, go back and check, you asked me about mine, and I told you that I used figures for both the US and China from the same source. As to the increases of over 10%, thats only marginally more than GDP growth, and given all the civil tasks that the PLA undertakes, including much larger Internal security than the US national guard, it's still not unreasonable for it's size. India and Pakistan spend 3% and 5% so it's not that unreasonable for the region. I don't see China as any kind of champion and certainly would far rather see the US as number one, but the fact is I just don't see anything that looks like agression on the part of the Chinese. Thats in part why I went for a sceanrio which has them enter by invitation, that and the fact that for at least ten years to do it by force would be suicide. Of the three scenarios I still go for mine, in that in number two I think the US especially if it was involved from day one and could use Bases in Guam, Korea, Japan and the Philippines would slaughter them. As to the third scenario I got a figure for Quemoy of only 153km2 which on the basis of 2kmx 2km, is less than 40 CM:SF maps, it would be like fighting on a ball park. In addition as the Chinese have MLRS with a range of 100 miles, the chinese could probably disperse enough artillery on the mainland to crater the place like the moon, It shelled it in the straits war of 1953(?) but artillery has moved on a fair bit since then. As to Abbots blockade theory, add to Russia as a land oil supplier, Kazahstan which is currently building a pipeline to China. Apart from that given the current level orf interdependence in SE Asia and the trade and investment patterns, there is a good chance that a US blockade of China would bring the economies of Japan, Korea and the PHilippines to their knees. Good strategy "Hey Guys help us to fight a war that will cripple your economies". Peter.

John, The fact that the Chinese have been saying it for years and done nothing, means that the "intent" part hasn't changed, the Soviets talked about crushing the west but they didn't do anything either. The fact that China is modernising it's capability does not infer that it is preparing for war , for that you need evidence of change in intent and so far there has been none of note, True it has reacted to independence talk by the Taiwanese government, but only by restating existing policy i.e. Reunificatiuon by force if necessary". But then the US stating that it is prepared to use nuclear weapons fist if attacked, doesn't indicate a new agressive policy. as it too is a restatement of existing policy. The case of hHitlers Germany is clearly different as there we had a change in both capability and intent. The Nazi's both similtaniously built up there capacity while changing policy to talk of both reversing the humiliations of Treaty of Versailles, and "living space for the German people". In effect both C and I were increasing. Oddly in the case of Bin Laden, we clearly prior to Sept 11th, corrected assessed "Intent", but missed badly on "Capability". As security experts had been warning on multiple highjacks since Dawsons Field, and complaining about lax airline and airport security in the US, with that to the rise of the suicide bomber, and somebody state side messed up big time. Peter.

Drusus, I probably put it badly so i'll try to make it clearer. As acceleration in the equation F=MA, is measured in Msec, I just took the muzzle velocity of 1090msec, as a good figure for the acceleration on the assumption that it wouldn't have lost that much in the 1st metre. 1,000msec is a good ball park figure to use for the speed of the round. If as you say the force is compressed in to 0.02 of a second (1/50) then you could be right to use 50 times the force. Which would make it, F= 0.004*50,000 = 200n. It's odd that as the calculation is in neutons, metres per sec and kilogrammes I an using the weight of the projectile only which I get as 4 grams, some people are using 63grains ( which is the same thing) and I don't know where the figure of 250 comes from, Again It's hard when people use different measures of imperial and metric. I found this which might interest people. For 5.56x45mm Nato. Velocity in feet-per-second (Muzzle, 100, 200, 300, 400, 500 yards) 5.56mm NATO (63 grain): 3200, 2862, 2521, 2198, 1900, 1612 7.62 NATO (168 grain): 2700, 2513, 2333, 2161, 1996, 1839 .30-06 (150 grain): 2700, 2473, 2257, 2052, 1859, 1664 .270 Win. (150 grain): 3000, 2804, 2613, 2429, 2253, 2084 Kinetic Energy in Ft-Pounds (Muzzle, 100, 200, 300, 400, 500 yards) 5.56mm NATO (63 grains @ 3200 FPS): 1432, 1146, 889, 676, 505, 364 7.62 NATO (168 grains @ 2700 FPS): 2719, 2355, 2030, 1742, 1486, 1261 .30-06 (150 grains @ 2700 FPS): 2428, 2037, 1697, 1403, 1150, 922 .270 Win. (150 grains @ 3000 FPS): 2997, 2618, 2273, 1965, 1690, 1446 Bullet Drop from line of bore (at 100, 200, 300, 400, 500 yards) 5.56mm NATO (63 grains @ 3200 FPS): -1.76, -7.79, -19.31, -38.06, -66.51 7.62 NATO (168 grains @ 2700 FPS): -2.37, -10.23, -24.47, -46.14, -76.53 .30-06 (150 grains @ 2700 FPS): -2.41, -10.51, -25.42, -48.60, -81.86 .270 Win. (150 grains @ 3000 FPS): -1.90, -8.22, -19.63, -36.92, -61.05 Bullet Path in Inches at Zero Range of 300 yards (100, 200, 300, 400, 500) 5.56mm NATO (63 grain @ 3200 FPS): +3.68, +4.58, 0.00, -11.81, -33.33 7.62 NATO (168 grain @ 2700 FPS): +4.79, +5.58, 0.00, -13.02, -34.75 .30-06 (150 grain @ 2700 FPS): +5.06, +5.94, 0.00, -14.20, -38.49 .270 Win. (150 grain @ 3000 FPS): +3.36, +4.36, 0.00, -10.25, -27.33 Like much of the net, it uses US ft/pounds, which makes it difficult to relate to metric. Peter.

My figures for both china and the US come from the CIA world year book, when making comparrisons it helps to use the same source. global security has a good measured article on Chinese defence budgets. Chinese Budget. Overall it gives what I see as a balanced view of a modernising force backed by an expanding economy. Of particular interest is the focus wages pay and conditions. a lot of the critics of the Bush administration overlooked this when they attacked his increases in defence spending calling him a Hawk. a very large part of the increase when on improving service personnels conditions, essential for an effective armed force. As to the threat, well in terms of assessment, T=CI, Threat = Capability x Intent. To determine the threat you look independantly at both the capabilities of the potential opponent, and his actions, Unfortunately you seem to be going for the rather simpler formula of T=C, Threat = Capability, where anyone whos capability is increasing regardless of why is seen as an increased threat. Peter.

John, The simple reason for the tank round example, is that tank guns have a complex mechanism for absorbing shock through the recoil system and control of the gasses from firing. Tank turrets on the other hand are solid objects designed to withstand impact and penetration. Therefore when a gun is fired the forces are dispersed and controlled , while at the other end, when the turret armour doesn't give (i.e. penetration) or the shot deflect, then the next weakest point gives, the turret ring. Fact is that if for some reason the recoil mechanism on an M1A2 gave on firing, there is a good chance that the gun would rip back through the turret, or just like it's target, the turret ring would give. As to the barrel of water, when it's empty I bet the bullet goes straight through, so it's almost certainly down to the effect of the shockwave in a liquid medium. As the bullet enters the force creates a pressure wave that redistributes the weight of the water rapidly to the back of the drum, this makes it unstable, and hey presto it tips. I once saw a slow motion version of this with a water storage tank. The team who built it didn't quite level the platform, so the water went to that side, which increased the weight, which pushed it down, which meant more water to that side, which increased the weight, etc etc . It took it a couple of days for people to notice the slight shift, it was really noticable when they inspected it, and the whole thing collapsed before the repair team arrived. As to whether the way in which the dispersal of force as a shockwave might cause a moose to fly, by altering it's center of gravity through the movement of internal fluids or soft tissue, I doubt it would be a factor, but it is why the oil drum tips. Peter.

Bruce70, I use 1,000m/s for a, as the muzzle velocity of a basic M-16 is 1090m/s and the barrel less than a meter, so although the energy level obviously drops with distance, 1000m/s is a good ball park figure. You don't need precision to establish principle. Peter.

Drusus, Range quoted is about 100 miles, fine for city driving/living, as to tank size, if you built it in to the floor pan,and had it 4" thick, and a car say 6ft by 8ft, that would give you about 450 litres with no loss of space at all. Peter.

Both Greece and Turkey have currnt and consistantly higher GDP spends than the US. China is now the biggest exporter in the world with Shanghi the worlds busiest port, it has every legitimate reason to expnad it's navy, which it has done proportionately, it being still a long way behind Britain or France, neither hof whom have the excuse of being a growing maritime exporter. As to the expansion of it's airborne, so what. If I have a single C-130 herc and buy anotherone, thats hardly a major issue, but that won't stop some gungho paranoid from saying " He'd up to something because he's doubled his airborne assault capacity". In addition if you look at UN operations you will see that in relationship to it's size and wealth China is starting to play a larger and more effective role. It's increased air lift capacity allows it to do that but, as to invading taiwan, forget it. Peter.

There is no doubt that the Chinese are modernising, and moving away from the old soviet system, be it Mig-19 derrivatives, or close control by ground controllers, but that doesn't mean they are "up to something". As other have said GW1 was a wake up call for the Chinese, and it showed that the late 1960's vintage airforce that the Chinese had in the early 90's was total inadequate. The subsequent modernisation is long overview, but it is in no way disproportionate to the current scale of the Chinese economy, or it's development. They are spending 4.3% of GDP (about $70bn), where as the US spends 3.5%, (about $400bn). The fact that a growing China has replaced a backward military with a more modern professional one, does not and should not be taken as intent. There is a difference between modernising your forces and building up for war. Peter.

What attracted me was the fact that it is such a simple ( if not great in terms of performance) solution. You plug it in at night and the compressor fills the tank. In that respect it's like an electric car, but it doesn't have the issues with batteries or fuel cells. For city driving without having to use oil, it may well have a future, as for long distance and hauling loads I don't it. Howver this could change if they come up with a custom built engine as opposed to an adated petrol one... Peter.

A few facts for the defend or ally brigade. Taiwan does more trade with China than with the US. China is Taiwans biggest trade Partner. Taiwan has invested more in China than almost any other nation. Links between Taiwan and Hong Kong are particularly strong. The continuation of prosperity in Hong kong since the Chinese took over has relieved many of Taiwans fears. The Taiwanese both ethnically and culturally are far closer to the Chinese than the US. The Por dialogue anti independence, opposition in Taiwan are currently on the ascendancy. All of these suggest that the prospect of Taiwan voluntarily changing sides and becoming a part of China are real, if not immediate. In this respect as the scenario clearly states, the whole China fighting across the straits is not part of it. As top the air capacity, the use of small aircraft like An-26, Y-7's is marginal, you can't invade by parachuting in a platoon at a time. Beyond that almost all of the rest require runways to land anything effectively, and with the like of TLAM they can be closed on day one. The Chinese are modernising there airforce, but their best still isn't as good as an F-15, or F-18E, and the quantities they are purchasing won't be enough to match the US dircetly for at least a decade, by which time the f-22 will be on line. That's why the scenario where the CHinese are already in occupation is the only one that will work. Unless you like the idea of CM game where the chinese get a few disrupted platoons of paras or marines who have to attack entrenched US Armoured Battalions. Peter.

So as I see it, if it won't knock the firer down, then it won't knock the target down, but does it mean that on the moon with one sixth gravity, the recoil and impact feel six times as strong. Peter.

This looks real enough to me, crap but real. Peter. web page

These are not bad as starters. Peter.

If you put in "Taiwan", in Google Maps you get some great photos of the countryside, ( I can't unfortunately find out how to post them), If you go for the US landing on the EAST coast, then it looks as if that is the mountainous side with a very narrow coastal strip, most of the flat land being on the Western Straits (Chinese) side. Peter.

The chances of the Chinese being able to supply by air are virtually none existant. It will be a decade before they have anything like an effective airborns capacity. At present their extremely limited transport fleet is based around 15 aging AN-12's. Given that a single TLAM can close a runway one US sub could cut off their airbridge with a single salvo from 500 miles away. To do it by air against opposition either dommestic or US the Chinese would need to guarentee absolute air superiority, and they can't do that against the US navy, no one can. Peter

I can remember what it's called, but there is a French car on the market that runs on compressed air..... It might be a cheap light way to store power if it could be delivered to a dynamo. Peter.

Isn't "Doomsday Survival" a contradiction in terms, isn't there some kind of trade descriptions act in the US.... Peter

Cpl Steiner, Wasn't trying to get at you about the DoW, I think that I prefer a real world situation, as it's to easy to fudge things if you go for an imaginary country. Rather than face up to the hard things, you can " invent" a way out of them, and that in the end tends to undermine the overall game. I tend to find the made up countries a bit one dimensional, and comic book, which doesn't seem to fit with a game that goes to great lengths to simulate real physics , real vehicles and real tactics. It's a bit like cheating, though thats just my view. Peter.

I am for metric every time, all that pounds to stone to ounces and feet, inches and yards is such a bloody pain in the arse... Peter.

Cpl Steiner, In actual fact Fredddie Forsyth was found to be "very" involved in a operation which involved a boat called the Albatross being intercepted off the coast of Portugal, full of men and guns. As a war coorespondant he covered the war in Biafra and it's aftermath and knew that region well. Now if you look at the CIA world book under Equatorial Guinea, you find this. http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ek.html Equatorial Guinea gained independence in 1968 after 190 years of Spanish rule. This tiny country, composed of a mainland portion plus five inhabited islands, is one of the smallest on the African continent. President OBIANG NGUEMA MBASOGO has ruled the country for over two decades since seizing power from his uncle, then President MACIAS, in a 1979 coup. ( check MACIAS out on the net, to see the similiarities) Although nominally a constitutional democracy since 1991, the 1996 and 2002 presidential elections - as well as the 1999 and 2004 legislative elections - were widely seen as flawed. The president exerts almost total control over the political system and has discouraged political opposition. Equatorial Guinea has also experienced rapid economic growth due to the discovery of large offshore oil reserves, and in the last decade has become Sub-Saharan Africa's third largest oil exporter. Despite the country's economic windfall from oil production resulting in a massive increase in government revenue in recent years, there have been few improvements in the population's living standards. Go back and read the discription of the country in the first chapter of "The Dogs of War", look at the mainland Africa part of the map. and you'll start to see just how made up it is.... Peter.

Found this on the BBC News today. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4652746.stm My money is on the US... Peter.

Rother, Try this page, it's wikipedia's page on Momentum, Oddly it's P=MV, Momentum = Mass x velocity, mirrors my F=MA almost exactly. Keep working peopel, together we'll get to the bottom of this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum Peter.