Peter Cairns

Can you collapse one side and not the other, it could be used as a form of anti-role mesure of last resort, though it would need to work like an airbag, by a sensor, rather than manually. come to think of it why not at least have crew airbags, if not ones on the antiRPG cages. Peter.

sgtgoody, The longbow apache does better. A single radar equipped Longbow can in a single sweep of under 30secs detect up to I think it is 32 seperate targets. It the relays them to the rest of the flight, say three others. Each apache then analyses the target data by position and threat and can then fire from behind cover. never having even poped up. Of course if you don't use an Apache or kiowa, you could use a contra rotor UAV with a millimetre radar. (it would rotate on the stop rather than have a rotating radar, disorientating for a manned helo but nothing for a UAV). It then sends that data to everyone in the network at the targets get hit from all angles and weapons types. Michael, Well as to materials theres Titanium ( expensive but not compared to the $4m M1A2 your trying to take out), or a ceramic, even Kevlar. Next option might be to allow for a delay on firing and a combustable or desintegrating tube, or even a double skin that allowed gas to dissapate. I don't think the base plate issue would be in surmountable either as it's a one shot weapon. If you added target GPS data it could correct it's own flight if it goes off track on the assent, though that might limit range. Maybe this is something best left for the CM:SLoD, near future starship troopers style game, but I like the idea. Peter.

I know some vehicles have the ability to drop their suspension, so given that this tends to be a road problem, perhaps looking at the option of lowering ground clearance for wheeled vehicles and hence centre of gravity might be one possible solution. Peter.

But one of the reasons mortars are so heavy is that they have to withstand multiple launches, in the same way that an RPG-7 is far more robust than a LAW. Anyway an 81mm mortar can fire far further than 3km, so your 5kg round is also probably a bit on the heavy side. The purpose of the weapomn isn't to blanket cover an area but as a PGNm to take out individual vehicles etc. An EO sensor that can identify targets, could also engage armour on the other side of a hill. Peter.

Given that we are seeing termanally guided "smart" mortar rounds and the effectiveness of "Top attack" ATGMs, like Javelin, has anyone suggested developing a disposable one shot mortar along the lines of a LAW. Range about 3,000 mtrs "Fire and Forget" , you just line it up angle it for approximately the right range, fire and abandon the plastic tube, and the "Seeker" does the rest. Issue them one per man to infantry squads. Just an idea what do people think. Peter.

juan_gigante, yeh your right, second 20 billion should be dollars. Uk defence expenditure is about £26 billion ( depending what accounting method you use), so thats about $50-55 Us, so $ 20 billion seems about right. Don't forget that the basic wages and costs of most of the personnel etc will be covered by the basic budget,as you'd need to pay these guys anyway, so we are only talking about the costs over and above that. Peter.

flamingknives, I'd always though that Tungsten rounds referred to Tungsten steel an alloy of Iron with a small percentage of Wolframium in it, in the same way that stainless steel is an alloy of Iron and Nickel. Peter.

Aren't there cities or neighbourhoods, in America where someone of the average age of a soldier in Iraq is more likely to get shot than someone on active duty, or was that just someone spinning a line on TV. Peter.

Mikey Check your sums mate, $20 billion a week is £1 trillion a year, or just over twice the total US defence budget. And you guys are saying steve stuck in an extra zero. £20billion a month is still half the budget so i suspect £20 billion a year is the one you wanted, which is about half the entire UK budget. Given the Uk has 200,000 in unifrom that may well be about right. As to the "Bulwark" supporting the US military thank the Chinese they are paying for it..... Peter.

Steve, I'd take issue with you on the idea of brainwashed conscripts, Soviet performance in Afghanistan had more similiarities with vietnam, in that the conscripts just didn't want to be there, they didn't believe in the war or at that point their own politicans. As to the capitailist background bit, I'd still place a far higher emphasis on education than the economy, if we take Finland, by conscription age kids have been in school since about 3, thats almost fifteen years of formal education they haven't just learned a lot, "They've learned how to learn". In some respect that has to do with the whole ethos of the scandinavia countries, who's education system has in some respect more in kin with social countries than the US. There are no shortage of people on the right who frown on the Scandanavia social democratic model, whether it be on the issue of tax levels or the role of a large state, but at the end of the day it provides the military with young people of the highest quality, something the US education system seems to struggle to do. OK it's a bit flipant but it seems that in Scandinavia people ender military service with an education and in the US they enter to get one. Peter.

One (all be it pretty off topic) issue that the likes of Pat Robertson raises with Venezula, is the role of private citizeans and article 2, the right to self defence. We are all pretty much agreed that if a group sets up in the US to train terrorist to attack another country thats wrong and we stop it. but what about radio stations or press adverts or the like. At what point can the US legitimately "bomb" a TV station, that is actively telling people to attack US troops, as opposed to reporting people saying it. Example al jazeera in my view has done nothing wrong, it's reporting may be biased at times but it hasn't actively promoted, encouraged or advocated attacks on americans. But if it did could the US strike at it legitimately. Now turn the tables, if the above is true, if say Rupert Murdoch has FOX news ( yeh that's a contradiction in terms) call for the people of Venezula to overthrow Chaveez, can they take action against him. Peter.

On the strategic level it's worth noting that that was very much in the hands of the politicians and the Nazi party where as operational and tactical was the army with it's prussian tradition. As well as not doing a very good job of gearing the economy for war a lot of people at the top of the Nazi party were pretty corrupt and in it to line their pockets. People made money on our side too, but not to the same extent. Steve made the point that he felt conscripts from a capitailist background had better motivation, which i doubt, as some of the most selfless and dedicated fighters in the last hundred years have been communist or socialist, but it could be argued that in a war of attrition, a command econonomy that can focus on the war not the market, has advantages. In WW2 certainly in Britain and to an extent the US, we acted far more like a command economy than in peace time. I suspect that meant that the changes needed were easier for the soviets than us. German production didn't really reach the levels they needed till 43-44 and by then it was to late. Peter.

Michael, The a to d thing was about how once third parties get invo;ved then others can join in. as i stated later in my post about Bin Laden feeling it was right to strike at the US because it armed Israel which had occupied the west bank. I remeber Gen Al Haig advocating that in retaliation for the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan the US should take action against Cuba, I think he called it "Horizontal Escalation". like I argued where possible don't violate borders as it opens a can of worms. Peter.

I think the issue of conscription is of less importance than education and motivation. It is difficult to train a conscript army to the level required for modern warfare if most of your intake can't read or right and have little or no formal education. in 1941 the average german was far more educated than the average russian and was then introduced to a military that had one of the finest traditions in europe. The Germans not only knew what they were doing but also how to pass that on to those they trained, and conscripts who had the educational background to absorb it. As steve points out by 39, Stalin had dessimated the Russian officer corp, and since the end of the civil war the army had become more and more an instrument of internal security and repression. In this context the foundations for training were eroded and the raw recruits barely literate, with many having had no real schooling at all. Between 41-45, the Russians, effectively had to start from scartch and as Steve rightly pointed out, as the war progressed the Russians produced better troops while, the germans lost far to many of their best to replace, and also run out of quallity people to train them and enough time to train them properly before sending them in to combat. In some respect the soviet doctrine might be appropriate for a nation with limited resources with an ill educated agrarian pool of conscripts and limited training experience and resources, just as long as it doesn't come up against a highly motivated western trained well resourced opponent with a fine military tradition and well educated conscripts. As to motivation, just how many arabs whether they hated Israel or not, were willing to die for corrupt governments they hated or in armies where they were sometime treated like dirt. Peter.

Runyan99, For me another significant factor in this (not just for arab armies),the primary purpose and orientation of the force. Where as we in the west tend to see our armed forces as primarily for domestic security against foreign threats, in many parts of the world the army is primarily directed against internal opposition or even the general populus. In addition as the US found to it's cost with ARVN an army can be internal structure so as not to be a threat to the regeme, by deliberatly giving out commands by personal loyalty or faction. This type of general "corruption of purpose" was to an extend in most arab armies far more apparent than in Israels. Peter.

Steve, I wasn't getting at you in particular, and I am glad that the US is taking extremists on there own soil far more seriously than before, over here the big concern for years was fund raising for the IRA. An odd consequence of 9/11 was that the real change in US attitudes probably accelerated or even broke the deadlock in the N.Ireland peace process. As to support of a recognisied regeme allowing intervention of a third I am not so sure. Given that Pol Pot was recognisied at the UN as the legitimate government, does that make the chinese incursion in to Vietnam legitimate. The right of self defence is one thing, but if you start extending it as "legitimate" to cross borders to attack anyone who attacks a friend, then you open up a whole can of worms. Stopping them at the border and going no further may not seem ideal, but borders are pretty much what the international community works by and laying them aside shouldn't be done lightly. Once country A, crosses in to country B because people from B are crossing in to ally C, Then Country D who is allied to country C can argue the right to strike at country A. Bin Laden took the view that as the US was bankrolling and arming Israel who had illegally occupied the west bank, the US financial capital was a legitimate military target. Once you start letting borders be porrus either way you are on a slippery slope. it's like the WP arguemnet if they behead people or Saddam uses gas, doesn't mean we can smoke people out, because we fight by the rules we want to be the norm, and they fight by theirs, but if we fight by theirs too, then their rules become the norm and that ultimately does more damage to the rule of law and what we stand for than they would. If you use evils means to defeat evil then evil prevails. So for me the US for the long term benefit of the rule of law and what we stand for, frustrating as it may be for the guys on the ground, should stick to it's side of the border. After all you mentioned Syria in the Lebanon, Israel to prevent the same thing ended up with creating a ministate in Southern Lebanon, and even the disasterous freedom in Galillee ( politically not militarily). and neither ultimately did any good, and probably made things worse. Peter.

Steve, So if the cubans were to blow up a few buildings in Miami, that were used by peopel who were tarining at weekends and advocating the overthrow of Castro, you wouldn't have a problem with that. lets face it if the US government isn't doing anything to stop them, doesn't give the cubans the right to do it, doesn't the US " forfeit their right to protest actions directly resulting from their lack of will or ability to be treated as a sovereign, neutral party." Peter.

Against a human, I would prefer to play the Syrian guerrilla type over US forces. Their tactics seem to better reflect my tactical personality. i.e. I am a coward.... Peter.

Sixxkiller, So what percentage of american car sales are "Porsche's"? Peter.

However there is the Skyhawk analogy' When the US had acompetition for a new carrier attack aircraft, everyone but one group submitted a prop aircraft. However the winner which went on to be the A-4, was the only jet, a single engined delta that outperformed all the rest. 40 years later the last uprated A-4's could fly far further with a much greater payload at higher speed, but the US didn't buy them, why? Because it went for the JSF, because despite the performance of the late A-4, it just had reached the end of it's development, and even with the latest technology, it would never be stealth or VSTOl. Sometimes you have to go back to basics and design from the ground up. Peter.

Michael Emrys, I was thinking more that he should maybe just be left in a corner with a ball of wool. Peter.

Drusus, Good post, I don't think we can have it both ways. from what i've read it's pretty clear that this is becoming an issue of the letter of the law as opposed to the spirit. It seems to be the case that if you intent to do damage with a chemical effect, such as smoke that can damage the lungs because it is corrosive, as WP is, then its outlawed. If on the other hand you put down a smoke screen of the same substance and and the enemy happen to breath it in, then it's okay, because there was no "Intent". The arguement over whether WP is a chemical weapon is a red herring, as the US has clearly stated that it deliberately used WP because the smoke forced people out because of it's properties, it looks like it pretty much has broken the spirit of the law if not the letter. As to the "well thats war", arguement. If Churchill had given the go ahead to drop Anthrax on Germany in 41-42, then I suspect the germans would have been dropping smallpox on us within a year. So some degree of restraint to stop it decending in to areas that we wouldn't want is worth considering. As has been said here before, to win the fight against extremism you need to separate the terrorist from his support and things like WP, just make that harder. To say it wasn't used against civilians when there were civilians in the area and men of military age were prevented from leaving or arressed if they tried too, make this look terrible in the eyes of arab world, with harm that will almost certainly outweigh any benefit that accrued on the battlefield. Peter.

Soory I should preview my posts, I hit H instead of K twice, and it should be siezed not ceased. I'll go stand in the corner of the class. Steve, Fair enough you have enough on your plate, it was just an idea. Peter.

The comment on Tibet wasn't that there was a direct similiarity but rather that like other one party states be they Iraq with Kuwait or the USSR with Afghanistan, have far fewer concerns about using the military option. We in the west however (particularly europe) tend to see force and particularly invasion as a last resort, sometimes as in Yugoslavia you could argue we actually leave it too late. The most common NK scenario has the North flooding across the border, like a Nato WP conflict in europe, but as the doctrine NK is following is similiar, ie "We will crush you on the battlefield if you dare to attack us", them attacking us isn't seen as a high probability. They would almost certainly lose so it has to be seen as an option of last resort. As to a SK/US move north, well that would take a real crisis little short of potential nuclear attack and even then it would be far more likely to be air attack against nuclear facilities, missiles and nuclear capable artillery ( a real option given HK's depolyment), followed by sitting and waiting for the ground retaliation and feeding them in to the grinder. So we'd have to attack them first to start it off and again that is a very high risk low probability scenario. By and large, like it or not, I think we'd rather watch the hornets nest hoping they don't swarm, that start poking it with a stick. So The Chinese option is though not "likely" at least as plausible as the other too. If you look at the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the "advicers" in the country effectively allowed the Soviets to cease the Afghans entire ammo supplies before the invasion began. I suspect given there level of "support" to HK the chinese could probably take out most of the comm and nuclear stuff in the first few hours. Peter

For those of you who don't know it China occupies Tibet and has for years, Oh and it also invaded Vietnam in retaliation for it toppling Pol Pot in Kampuchia (and got it's ass kicked), so it has a history so to speak. Peter.