Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: pyro-manic on June 22, 2005, 09:16:42 am
-
This is going to be a big issue in the next few years, as the government decides on whether to replace the Trident missile-equipped Vanguard-class ballistic missile submarines, and what to replace them with.
The Vanguards are the only intercontinental delivery system for Britain's nuclear deterrent, so if they are not replaced Britain will no longer be a nuclear power. The vessels aren't due to be decommissioned for another 20 years or so, but developing/procuring a replacement will be very costly and time-consuming.
What do you think should be done? Should the UK be the first country to take a step towards removing the scourge of nuclear weapons, or is it vital for world security that the second-strike capability is retained?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4109564.stm
The article doesn't cover the whole story, just Portillo's viewpoint, but I think his reasoning is deeply flawed. He says "we would be a more useful ally for America" without them, as we could spend more on extra attack submarines and capital ships. But then we become even more attached to and dependent on the Americans, which is not something I feel we should be doing either militarily (as it reduces the Forces' stand-alone usefulness even further) or politically (even closer ties to America isolate us from the rest of Europe, and make us more of a target for anti-US groups).
I don't like nuclear weapons, but I do think that they are keeping the world fairly safe. I'd love to see Britain get rid of them, but other countries would have to do so as well, and that isn't going to happen (certainly not in the case of the US, Russia, China, Israel or India/Pakistan, and I doubt the French would give them up either, given their love for all things nuclear)...
Your thoughts, please....
-
My thinking is: the benefits of Britain taking a step forward toward deprolifiration outweigh the possible risks. If Britain took the important step, it would set an impressive precedent, and if done right, give a boost to the nuclear disarmament movement. So you ask, what about the necessity of a nuclear detterant. Well, for one thing, the UK is not under threat, even remotely, from anyone that I know of, and is not likely to be so for a long time. Everyone in Europe is more or less buddy buddy, and the chances of another WW2 scenario erupting are very remote. Even then, there are two other countries, France and America, who's interests are close enough the UK's that they can fulfill the requirements of "don't you dare look at me like that, I've got The Bomb". Sure, not too many people prefer to leave their defense, even potentially, in the hands of others, but in any real world scenario I think Britain could be considered as good as armed (with nukes).
In any case, if it were to happen, Britain would be perhaps the only country on Earth that could talk about nuclear disarmament from moral high ground.
-
In principle I would agree with you Rictor, however in practise the possible risks of being the first major nuclear power to engage in deproliferation are top great. I'm afraid I back the stance of upgrading our current deterrent to become more effective and less reliant on the US.
-
nuke em all and let god sort em out...
only i dont believe in god, oh well, it wont matter after the global thermonuclear bbq :D
-
The question that occurs to me is.... who's going to nuke us anyways? Who are we actually deterring?
Because.... all the fundamentalist loonie nations purported to have ICBMs have other targets, France & Israel don't strike me as being hostile to us, China, Russia and the US will be more interested in each other than, and the former Soviet states AFAIK are more interested in saving money through getting rid of any nukes that they have, than in actually spending to make them useable.
So I'm not sure where the threat is. Sure, MAD was a balancing factor in the Cold War, but that was only really about the US vs Russia anyways; the combined arsenals of europe didn't account for all that much in comparison to those 2. I can't really feel a tangible benefit of having a nuclear arsenal, and I'm not sure the money required to upgrade would be worth it.
(after all, saying having nukes has stopped an attack upon us risks falling into the same territory as saying I have a rock that scares off tigers).
-
The thing that strikes me first is, who really cares enough that Britain is a nuclear power in the world anyway? Myself? I don't think the British government has the balls to use a nuclear weapon whether they have them or not. We (as a nation) simply don't seem to hold the stature and importance in world power that we once did.
In addition to this, it's a fair bet that if Britain were in need of a nuclear arsenal... we'd go straight to America to get it. Our current relationship with the US implies that any attack against us would be met with absolute force on their part.
Britain could take the first step in nuclear disarming. This could go two ways. Firstly, other nations all over the world would be moved by this show of moral strength and feel compelled to reduce or remove their own nuclear arms. Or.. nobody would care. Feeling that Britain is not really worth worrying about - the main contenders in the power game at the moment being the US, China and Russia... as well as the middle east and their collective weapons (biological, chemical etc.).
Personally, if it were my decision to make. I'd have Britain publically disarm the majority of its nuclear capability whilst secretly replacing at least 50% of our intercontinental nuclear delivery systems. Our current tendency to play the US's lapdog and really make no progress of our own (either internally or internationally) is really getting Britain nowhere.
Of course, it's not my decision to make :)
Edit: Aldo beat me to some of my points ;)
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
The question that occurs to me is.... who's going to nuke us anyways? Who are we actually deterring?
The aliens man, the aliens.
I shouldn't speak since I'm not British, but I wouldn't particularly like my gvt to get rid of them. Not unless it's the last one to do so, at least. ANd, dunno, that kind of things, it's always when you don't have them anymore than an occasion arises when you think "damn, these could have come in handy" :p
****ing aliens.
-
Bah, the aliens always invade the US first, anyways. Have you learned nothing from TV?
(incidentally, the only time a nuke comes in handy - for any sane country - is when you're already ****ed, and you want to **** the other guy back before you die. In a metaphorical sense, of course.)
-
No, you wait for the aliens to invade the US, and you nuke the US. It's that simple, but since the States are so big, we need many nukes, so keep yours.
-
You could always auction them off. I'm sure there are some rich oil sheiks willing to pay top dollar for a little, shall we say, insurance.
Originally posted by Kalfireth
The thing that strikes me first is, who really cares enough that Britain is a nuclear power in the world anyway? Myself? I don't think the British government has the balls to use a nuclear weapon whether they have them or not. We (as a nation) simply don't seem to hold the stature and importance in world power that we once did.
In addition to this, it's a fair bet that if Britain were in need of a nuclear arsenal... we'd go straight to America to get it. Our current relationship with the US implies that any attack against us would be met with absolute force on their part.
Britain could take the first step in nuclear disarming. This could go two ways. Firstly, other nations all over the world would be moved by this show of moral strength and feel compelled to reduce or remove their own nuclear arms. Or.. nobody would care. Feeling that Britain is not really worth worrying about - the main contenders in the power game at the moment being the US, China and Russia... as well as the middle east and their collective weapons (biological, chemical etc.).
Personally, if it were my decision to make. I'd have Britain publically disarm the majority of its nuclear capability whilst secretly replacing at least 50% of our intercontinental nuclear delivery systems. Our current tendency to play the US's lapdog and really make no progress of our own (either internally or internationally) is really getting Britain nowhere.
Of course, it's not my decision to make :)
Edit: Aldo beat me to some of my points ;)
Well, in any case, it's unreasonable to expect other nations to disarm just at the drop of a hat. But I think the important thing is to show that it *can* be done, and set a precedent. From there, it could possibly be decades before anything happens, but it's absurd that something which is supported by the vast majority of the world's population, namely nuclear disarmament, can be such a non issue as to not seriously be considered by any government. If it happens, it will only happen because the the people of Russia, or India or the US wish it so, and are passionate enought to fight the government over it.
-
Nukes are bad (except for blowing stuff up in outer space, that is different). No nation should have the power to wipe out another nation in just a few minutes with disasterous consequences for everyone else (nuclear winter, radiation, etc).
-
The fact is that anyone who thinks they are responsible enough to know when to launch a nuke, isn't.
I'm a bit worried about focus swinging back round onto Nuclear weapons these days, they've been pretty dormant as an agenda item since the collapse of Soviet Russia, and had faded into the background, but with the threat of dirty bombs etc, some western countries have suddenly started kicking off their their nuke programs again. If you think about this, it doesn't deter anything, in fact, it means there will be more materials for dirty bombs knocking around.
-
Not really...the threat of dirty bombs is a direct result of the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the attendant collaspe of Soviet security forces' tight controls on nuclear material. Russia is pretty much the only place in the world where you can get nuclear material if you want to.
-
America 'lost' 4 Nuclear submarines and a Cruiser in their last Navy Audit. They existed on paper, but no-one could find out where they were.
It's just Russia that you hear about more, but a lot of countries have lost a lot of nuclear stuff in the last 20 years, and building more missiles only provides the opportunity to lose more. ;)
-
Originally posted by Flipside
America 'lost' 4 Nuclear submarines and a Cruiser in their last Navy Audit. They existed on paper, but no-one could find out where they were.
Do you have actual documentation of this, or is it hearsay? Because it strikes me as EXTREMELY unlikely in the first place, and even more extremely unlikely that I would not have seen an article on it in Proceedings, which is the U.S. Naval Institute magazine I've been getting for the past ten years...
-
Yeah! They just started an escalation game! Flipside, pop up something bigger. Tell us daddy is an admiral :D
-
It was the first run of, I think, the 1992 Audit, the Audit was at fault in that case, it was paper error, the ships never existed, but it shows how easily things like that can happen ;)
There are currently 92 missing Nuclear weapons floating around just in our oceans, heads from nuclear torpedoes, the remains of ICBM's from damaged or abandoned Subs etc. That includes debris from at least 2 American subs and 1 UK Sub. The same goes for on land, it is the nature of Beaurocracy that stuff gets lost in paperwork. It is the nature of Corporacy to not tell anyone you screwed up, the mixture of these 2 are dangerous.
Russia is the main source for 'lost' nuclear weapons, I'll freely admit that, but Nuclear equipment goes missing all the time, from Nuclear waste from powerplants to warheads on missiles. It's often put down to paper error, but that doesn't mean it is neccesarily always the truth ;)
Oh, and Nico, Daddy isn't an Admiral, however, my Sister-in-law's father was before he retired :) Grandad was a Sgt Major if that helps? ;)
-
Originally posted by Flipside
The fact is that anyone who thinks they are responsible enough to know when to launch a nuke, isn't.
I'm a bit worried about focus swinging back round onto Nuclear weapons these days, they've been pretty dormant as an agenda item since the collapse of Soviet Russia, and had faded into the background, but with the threat of dirty bombs etc, some western countries have suddenly started kicking off their their nuke programs again. If you think about this, it doesn't deter anything, in fact, it means there will be more materials for dirty bombs knocking around.
Of course, didn't both US and Iraqi (pre 90s, IIRC) studies decide a dirty bomb was pretty much useless as a weapon? (I think due to the problems of dispersing enough radiation, over a large distance, to actually kill someone or cause anything more than a very slight increase in the chance of cancer).
-
Having done a brief looking around into that statement, I must conclude that the audit bit is not, in fact, true. I can find no evidence to support it.
Every time there has been a lost nuclear weapon, there has been an intensive effort to recover it if at all possible; those that haven't been recovered are beyond the current ability of our undersea technology to do so. Witness the loss of a bomb due to midair collision between a pair of B-52s off the coast of Spain in the '70s. Over a month and billions of dollars were expended employing just about every Western-made deep submersible to find and recover the thing, which was done successfully.
Suggesting one could recover reactor material from the Thresher or the Scorpion, for example, without anyone knowing it is beyond mere lunacy: there are only a very few submersibles in the world capable of diving that deep. They are expensive to hire and very high-profile; also most of them belong to government agencies at least partly. It's also worth noting that no one has ever lost an SSB or SSBN.
Similarly, even on land, people take this stuff very seriously for the very reason that it can be used as weapon. There was a massive stink about a package of radiological iodine that went missing from a hospital a few years ago, and it wasn't even enough to be really lethal without extremely prolonged exposure. Nuclear disposal is well-documented and at minmum closely watched by government agencies, if not actually done by them. Even in Russia, the problem is not that material is "lost": it's all accounted for at the moment. The problem is that it's sitting in unguarded warehouses and you could just walk in and swipe it if you wanted to.
-
Indeed, a dirty bomb is far more effective as a phsychological weapon (used by both sides), I'm glad someone pointed that out, and, in fact they are far far more likely to use nuclear waste than a full warhead ;)
But the proliferation of new nuclear weapons being bought about is the symbol of a worrying trend, it's not as if they are effective in the slightest in the kind of war we are facing these days and are somewhat expensive for the taxpayer :(
Ngtm1r - As I said the Audit was considered failed and re-started, I can't remember the exact date ;) There was also a lot of MTB's missing till it turned out they were being used as training vessels and the paperwork hadn't been updated. As I said in my last post, if stuff is lost on paper or mis-filed, it can be a long time before it's found, it's more that kind of thing I'm worried about, not the stuff that makes the headlines, but the stuff that doesn't get noticed, I guess I've grown somewhat sceptical in my old age for what defines 'every effort'. For example, did anyone find anything about what happened to all that ammo that went missing in Iraq?
-
Originally posted by Flipside
For example, did anyone find anything about what happened to all that ammo that went missing in Iraq?
Carbombs.
:nervous:
-
LOL Possibly, though, it's possible to trace explosives from their chemical residue, if the explosives came from that particular dump, I'm pretty sure someone would have made an issue of it ;)
-
Where else would it go? They have the explosives, they obviously need 'em. It's not like there's a better place to use them than Iraq.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
LOL Possibly, though, it's possible to trace explosives from their chemical residue, if the explosives came from that particular dump, I'm pretty sure someone would have made an issue of it ;)
It's also expensive and time consuming, which when explosives are missing due to neglegence and used immediately thereafter does not necessitate a detailed analysis of where it came from. Besides, do you think anyone actually knows what was there BEFORE the ammo dumps were looted?
-
Yes, the Iraqis pulled up in 55 Armour plated Winnebegos, loaded up 380 tonnes of explosives and drove off whilst the guard was having a piss ;)
As far as identification is concerned, explosives were being used before the theft as well. I always feel a little concerned when it's 'too expensive and time consuming' to prove whether or not this much explosive is still in Iraq or has made it's way out of it.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
Yes, the Iraqis pulled up in 55 Armour plated Winnebegos, loaded up 380 tonnes of explosives and drove off whilst the guard was having a piss ;)
As far as identification is concerned, explosives were being used before the theft as well. I always feel a little concerned when it's 'too expensive and time consuming' to prove whether or not this much explosive is still in Iraq or has made it's way out of it.
Guard? Don't be silly....
(Incidentally; StratComm, the UNMOVIC inspectors surveyed a lot of these dumps. So they probably had an idea; IIRC they notified the US forces about it, who did precisely bugger all to secure them)
-
Originally posted by Flipside
Yes, the Iraqis pulled up in 55 Armour plated Winnebegos, loaded up 380 tonnes of explosives and drove off whilst the guard was having a piss ;)
See what happens when you drink too much beer?
That's why I don't drink much, some way or another, it could lead to WW3 if I did.
-
I'd say get rid of them. You don't need them anymore, and Britian has a lot of allies, so if they get nuked, they could always get someone else to bomb/nuke the hell out of whoever did it. Not only that, but who's gonna nuke someone in this day and age? Not only does practically everyone have nukes, but no one would dare or even want to use them anymore, for fear of reprisal from the defending nation along with all the other nations of the world.
The only people that would use nukes nowadays are terrorists, but if they do it, who are you going to nuke back?
Not only that, but it would send a powerful message to the world if they removed their nuclear weapons - it'd be saying "We are serious that the world needs to be a better place, and we're willing to make it so".
-
I agree with your final sentence 100% UT, the only thing that can change the world from a human standpoint is humans themselves, and to do that, they have to got to want to, and be prepared to make sacrifices, 'a better place' doesn't neccesarily equate to 'a better place for me'.
-
Originally posted by Nico
that kind of things, it's always when you don't have them anymore than an occasion arises when you think "damn, these could have come in handy"
a nuclear weapon is something you don't want to be without when you need.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Carbombs.
:nervous:
[color=66ff00]I have no idea why I find that funny, but I still laugh.
[/color]
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
a nuclear weapon is something you don't want to be without when you need.
Well yeah, tell Sheridan about it.
-
It's also worth noting that no one has ever lost an SSB or SSBN.
The Russians lost a Typhoon class SSBN just a few years ago.
-
Remember that Russian general that said they lost 200 suitcase sized nukes?
-
Originally posted by Kosh
The Russians lost a Typhoon class SSBN just a few years ago.
I assume you mean the Kursk? She was an Oscar II-class SSGN.
-
The problem with nukes is that even if everyone did get rid of them, the knowledge to build them would still be there. And so any nation who recreated them would immediately become the superpower, and I don't think anyone is willing to risk that at the moment.
-
The Ruskies lost a November class sub (K-159) in August 2003, but it was already decomissioned (since the late 80s). Although it did contain nuclear waste from the reactor.
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
The only people that would use nukes nowadays are terrorists, but if they do it, who are you going to nuke back?
A very American view of world politics. The threat from Terrorists has been completely and utterly overblown. Indeed, there is a threat from "terrorists", but not much more than before - you know what - and the idea of the "Terrorist that comes to destroy the Freedom loving world and all those you hold dear" that media nowadays (and most politicians) would have you believe, is also complete and utter crap. The idea that someone could get their hands on a Nuclear Device is fiction, pure and simple, they're nigh-on impossible to manufacture without considerable cost, and much harder to aquire than most would think...
Originally posted by Black Wolf
The problem with nukes is that even if everyone did get rid of them, the knowledge to build them would still be there. And so any nation who recreated them would immediately become the superpower, and I don't think anyone is willing to risk that at the moment.
I get what you're talking about, and it really rings true, but when you think about it, knowledge can be forgotten and 'un-learned', even weapons technology. All you'd have to do is either enforce the destruction of any and all knowledge on Nulcear Weapons - almost and impossibility given how wide that technology spans - or, to be simple, find something else that gets the job done better. I mean, think about it this way - since WWII, Armour on Warships has been pretty much discarded, as a Cruise Missile or Bomber or whathaveyou launched from a modern fleet could decimate one's ship regardless of Armour designed to stop close-quarter barrages. If there was a sudden need to create heavily armoured ships, nobody would be able to do it, as the technology has been forgotten, discarded, un-learned if you will. Indeed, Neccessity is both the Mother, and Mortician of Invention...
...Back on topic, my theory is that a Group of secret Agents or whathaveyou, should sneak into every missile installation, warehouse, Boomer Sub (whilst in dock of course), or any place housing a Nuclear-Tipped Missile/Bomb, and replace them with Warheads that are completely hollow. I mean, imagine the look on the faces of the respective leaders of future aggressors when their 'Mighty, Feared Nuclear Arsenal' simply impacts their opponent's country with a dull *THUD*...
-
Originally posted by Mefustae
blah blah. The idea that someone could get their hands on a Nuclear Device is fiction, pure and simple, they're nigh-on impossible to manufacture without considerable cost, and much harder to aquire than most would think...
[/b]
Nuclear devices which can be used as weapons vary significantly. The easiest is to take an ordinary explosive, tie a pack of radioactive just around it, blow it in midair and pray. It will do practically no damage but can provoke hysteria or something.
Then you can try to steal a tactical nuke, or build one. Stealing it? Good luck with that. You could bribe your way into some Russian base and contact the responsible generals - quite often the army commanders have direct control over their tactical nuclear weapons but they can only be deployed under orders from higher echelons. This seems unlikely as well, but it's not impossible.
You could also build one. First you have to get the fissile material, and that means either stealing it somehow or buying it. Stealing sounds like a fun sport, because nuclear facilities that handle weapons-grade fissile materials are extremely easy to infiltrate. Buying it requires someone to somehow aquire the stuff and then you'll pay your lifetime savings for it and get a bunch of dead kittens or whatsoever.
This way you can come up with impressive firepower, several kilotons (hint: not very much), could cause a bit of ruckus in some town, cause hysteria and afterall it would be traceable - that's the funny thing, it's possible to trace the fissile material all the way back to it's mining location!
Then you could have an ICBM level MIRV or something as ludicrous. You're not going to get them unless you're some loonie missile base commander, and then James Bond will come and kill your face until you die.
The final note: Aquiring nuclear weapons is certainly not impossible, but it's difficult, and costly, and hazardous, and getting some tactical device you bought from Igor to actually work might be quite a challenge. The scenario in where a mysterious rogue state sells nuclear material to TERRISTS is not impossible, but I have hard time figuring out just why would they do that. So far no plausible scenario exist.
I get what you're talking about, and it really rings true, but when you think about it, knowledge can be forgotten and 'un-learned', even weapons technology. All you'd have to do is either enforce the destruction of any and all knowledge on Nulcear Weapons - almost and impossibility given how wide that technology spans - or, to be simple, find something else that gets the job done better.
You should also destroy all knowledge on nuclear physics, relativity and so on. Quite a lot to unlearn!
I mean, think about it this way - since WWII, Armour on Warships has been pretty much discarded, as a Cruise Missile or Bomber or whathaveyou launched from a modern fleet could decimate one's ship regardless of Armour designed to stop close-quarter barrages. If there was a sudden need to create heavily armoured ships, nobody would be able to do it, as the technology has been forgotten, discarded, un-learned if you will. Indeed, Neccessity is both the Mother, and Mortician of Invention...
I call bull****. If anything, knowledge of making armour has increased substantially in recent 60 years, and we're no longer just attaching steel plates into superstructure and praying that they might stand a blast from Exocet or whathaveyou. You know how well armoured carriers are? Hint: incredibly. We also have all the nice composite armours, ceramic plates, gels, kevlar and stuff - military stuff nowadays is very, very armoured. Naval vessels especially.
...Back on topic, my theory is that a Group of secret Agents or whathaveyou, should sneak into every missile installation, warehouse, Boomer Sub (whilst in dock of course), or any place housing a Nuclear-Tipped Missile/Bomb, and replace them with Warheads that are completely hollow. I mean, imagine the look on the faces of the respective leaders of future aggressors when their 'Mighty, Feared Nuclear Arsenal' simply impacts their opponent's country with a dull *THUD*... [/B]
Well that wouldn't end up very well would it? ;)
-
Janos: Modern warships have practically no armour. They rely on active defence (i.e. shoot down/dodge the missiles before they hit) and advanced damage control. A modern warship would have a very hard time against anything built before 1950 in a head-to-head fight. An Exocet wouldn't even slow a battleship down. Modern warships are designed to fight modern battles, ie against other high-tech weapons and aircraft, rather than against brute force. They will be designed to counter guided missiles rather than shell fire, so they will have lots of point-defence turrets (Phalanx guns and the like), lots of ECM equipment, and will not have any armour plate, as a missile doesn't deliver anywhere near the energy of a 15-inch shell. Rather they'll have a few layers of "skin, to stop the missile penetrating right into the ship and gutting it, and will rely on agility to avoid taking a hit. Most modern warships will be destroyed (or at least critically damaged) if they take more than one or two direct hits - see the Sheffield and Antelope in the Falklands War - whereas an old-style warship could take a dreadful beating before sinking.
-
Originally posted by Janos
Nuclear devices which can be used as weapons vary significantly. The easiest is to take an ordinary explosive, tie a pack of radioactive just around it, blow it in midair and pray. It will do practically no damage but can provoke hysteria or something ...[budabuda]... The scenario in where a mysterious rogue state sells nuclear material to TERRISTS is not impossible, but I have hard time figuring out just why would they do that. So far no plausible scenario exist. [/B]
That's funny, you make it sound like you actually know anything about it :p
-
Originally posted by pyro-manic
Janos: Modern warships have practically no armour. They rely on active defence (i.e. shoot down/dodge the missiles before they hit) and advanced damage control. A modern warship would have a very hard time against anything built before 1950 in a head-to-head fight. An Exocet wouldn't even slow a battleship down. Modern warships are designed to fight modern battles, ie against other high-tech weapons and aircraft, rather than against brute force. They will be designed to counter guided missiles rather than shell fire, so they will have lots of point-defence turrets (Phalanx guns and the like), lots of ECM equipment, and will not have any armour plate, as a missile doesn't deliver anywhere near the energy of a 15-inch shell. Rather they'll have a few layers of "skin, to stop the missile penetrating right into the ship and gutting it, and will rely on agility to avoid taking a hit. Most modern warships will be destroyed (or at least critically damaged) if they take more than one or two direct hits - see the Sheffield and Antelope in the Falklands War - whereas an old-style warship could take a dreadful beating before sinking.
A carrier, for example, is insanely durable. It can take direct hits and shrug them off - well, of course there's structural damage, but sinking a carrier is not an easy task, even if we assume you get a direct line of fire and all that jazz. Some navy geeks who go ape**** every time we're talking about sinking US carriers tell that carriers could propably survive a near-vicinity hit of tactical nuke without sinking, but they wouldn't be battle capable after that, nor would the crew be very fine. :)
A modern missile packs a HUGE punch, and can engage targets well beyond the ranges of conventional cannons - the artillery is pretty much dead in present navies, except for CIWS and so on.
A current naval asset is not easy to sink, because they do have steel armour, but they're pretty easy to damage if you play your cards right. It's just not feasible to armour the entire top structure of a ship - radars, antennae, bridges, weaponry - because it could hamper their abilities and add weight. A ship can survive a missile hit or maybe not, but usually missile hits don't outright sink the ships. A torpedo hit (I know there's at least a plan, if not implementation, of CIWS system being able to shoot at underwater targets!), on the other hand, can and will.
-
Originally posted by Nico
That's funny, you make it sound like you actually know anything about it :p
thank you for your contribution
-
Originally posted by pyro-manic
Janos: Modern warships have practically no armour. They rely on active defence (i.e. shoot down/dodge the missiles before they hit) and advanced damage control. A modern warship would have a very hard time against anything built before 1950 in a head-to-head fight. An Exocet wouldn't even slow a battleship down. Modern warships are designed to fight modern battles, ie against other high-tech weapons and aircraft, rather than against brute force. They will be designed to counter guided missiles rather than shell fire, so they will have lots of point-defence turrets (Phalanx guns and the like), lots of ECM equipment, and will not have any armour plate, as a missile doesn't deliver anywhere near the energy of a 15-inch shell. Rather they'll have a few layers of "skin, to stop the missile penetrating right into the ship and gutting it, and will rely on agility to avoid taking a hit. Most modern warships will be destroyed (or at least critically damaged) if they take more than one or two direct hits - see the Sheffield and Antelope in the Falklands War - whereas an old-style warship could take a dreadful beating before sinking.
That only applies to warships, though. If you take the various work done on armour plating other things, combine it with work done on bouyancy and physics and whatnot, I pretty much reckon they could easily build a nice big-iron warship.
-
Originally posted by Janos
thank you for your contribution
you're welcome ^^
-
Oh, hell yes. But it's entirely impractical - nobody could justify the cost, and it'd never get used. Shame, really - battleships are extremely cool...
-
Originally posted by Janos
A carrier, for example, is insanely durable. It can take direct hits and shrug them off - well, of course there's structural damage, but sinking a carrier is not an easy task, even if we assume you get a direct line of fire and all that jazz. Some navy geeks who go ape**** every time we're talking about sinking US carriers tell that carriers could propably survive a near-vicinity hit of tactical nuke without sinking, but they wouldn't be battle capable after that, nor would the crew be very fine. :)
A modern missile packs a HUGE punch, and can engage targets well beyond the ranges of conventional cannons - the artillery is pretty much dead in present navies, except for CIWS and so on.
A current naval asset is not easy to sink, because they do have steel armour, but they're pretty easy to damage if you play your cards right. It's just not feasible to armour the entire top structure of a ship - radars, antennae, bridges, weaponry - because it could hamper their abilities and add weight. A ship can survive a missile hit or maybe not, but usually missile hits don't outright sink the ships. A torpedo hit (I know there's at least a plan, if not implementation, of CIWS system being able to shoot at underwater targets!), on the other hand, can and will.
You ever heard of a retired US general called Paul van Rippen? In 2002, he played the role of OPFOR commander in Millenium Chalenge 2, a US wargame against a fictional Middle-Eastern foe (called, quite coincidentally, Saddam Hussein. He went up against the might of the US warmachine with really primitive equipement, and kicked their asses. He used small fishing boats and Cessna-type planes, and managed to sink 2/3 of the US carrier battlegroup before anyone realized what the hell was going on. The US continually cheated, for example they "resurfaced" the sunk ships, as well as telling van Rippen what to do (turn on your AA so we can track you, don't put snipers in the mosque etc etc). In the end, he called it quits due to the unfair and predetermined outcome of the wargames, but he showed the whole world that the US's invunerability was just a myth, and that high tech equipement does not equal victory.
-
Link?
I'd really enjoy reading up on that :)
-
http://www.exile.ru/2002-December-11/war_nerd.html
-
Proof once again that strategy can beat brute force.
"Danger to your starfleet, not this battlestation."
Riiiiiiight.
-
"Cold Bringers".
That'll show we're serious about ****ing everyone else over if they mess with us. ;)